Terlipressin versus norepinephrine for septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

12Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin compared with norepinephrine for septic shock. Materials and Methods: The relevant studies from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase were searched by two independent investigators. A variety of keywords were used to search the studies. Stata software (version 11.0, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of six studies were identified and incorporated into the meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no difference for 28-day mortality (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.85,1.15], P = 0.849), AE (RR = 2.54, 95%CI = [0.58,11.08], P = 0.214), andMAP (SMD = -0.10, 95%CI = [-0.35,0.14], P = 0.405), OI, urinary output, Scr, total bilirubin, ALT, and AST between TP group and NE group. While TP could decrease HR at 24 and 48 h compared with NE. Conclusions: Current results suggest that terlipressin showed no added survival benefit for septic shock when compared with norepinephrine, while terlipressin could decrease heart rate in the late phase of septic shock compared with norepinephrine without further liver and kidney injury.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huang, P., Guo, Y., Li, B., & Liu, Q. (2019). Terlipressin versus norepinephrine for septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01492

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free