Adrenergic and non-adrenergic vasopressor agents can be used to correct hypotension in shock states. For a similar increase in arterial pressure, these agents may be associated with different haemodynamic, metabolic, endocrinological or immunological effects. But how relevant are these differences? Do these affect the outcome of patients with shock? Large-scale randomized trials comparing the effects of different vasopressor agents are scarce. Data on potential alternatives, and especially vasopressin, are even more scarce. Over-interpretation of the data, and especially of data obtained in subgroups, is common. Analysis of subgroups may be useful to address mechanisms and to raise hypotheses. However, subgroup analysis is often biased by confounding factors, especially when subgroup categorization is defined by response to therapy and not by intrinsic patient or disease characteristics. In this issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology, Bracht and colleagues present their interpretation of data from trials comparing vasopressin with noradrenaline in patients with septic shock. Here, we present an alternative interpretation.

De Backer, D., & Scolletta, S. (2012). Vasopressors in shock: too early to move away from catecholamines?. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY, 165(7), 2012-2014 [10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01746.x.].

Vasopressors in shock: too early to move away from catecholamines?

SCOLLETTA, SABINO
2012

Abstract

Adrenergic and non-adrenergic vasopressor agents can be used to correct hypotension in shock states. For a similar increase in arterial pressure, these agents may be associated with different haemodynamic, metabolic, endocrinological or immunological effects. But how relevant are these differences? Do these affect the outcome of patients with shock? Large-scale randomized trials comparing the effects of different vasopressor agents are scarce. Data on potential alternatives, and especially vasopressin, are even more scarce. Over-interpretation of the data, and especially of data obtained in subgroups, is common. Analysis of subgroups may be useful to address mechanisms and to raise hypotheses. However, subgroup analysis is often biased by confounding factors, especially when subgroup categorization is defined by response to therapy and not by intrinsic patient or disease characteristics. In this issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology, Bracht and colleagues present their interpretation of data from trials comparing vasopressin with noradrenaline in patients with septic shock. Here, we present an alternative interpretation.
De Backer, D., & Scolletta, S. (2012). Vasopressors in shock: too early to move away from catecholamines?. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY, 165(7), 2012-2014 [10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01746.x.].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Vasopressors in shock.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 158.74 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
158.74 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11365/41243
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo