Comparison of first-line and second-line terlipressin versus sole norepinephrine in fulminant ovine septic shock.

Research paper by Tim G TG Kampmeier, Philip H PH Arnemann, Michael M Hessler, Laura M LM Seidel, Karsten K Becker, Andrea A Morelli, Sebastian W SW Rehberg, Christian C Ertmer

Indexed on: 10 May '18Published on: 10 May '18Published in: Scientific Reports


The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines suggest the use of vasopressin in case of catecholamine-refractory septic shock. Terlipressin (TP) as a V-selective AVP analogue is a potential alternative, though data regarding the first-line administration in septic shock are scarce. The present study explored and compared the effects of first-line vs. second-line infusion of TP or sole norepinephrine regarding organ function, fluid and norepinephrine requirements and survival in fulminant ovine septic shock. Peritoneal sepsis was induced in 23 ewes after laparotomy and faecal withdrawal from the caecum. After onset of shock, causal and supportive sepsis therapy (antibiotics, peritoneal lavage, fluids and open-label norepinephrine) was performed in all animals. Concurrently, animals were randomized to receive 0.9% sodium chloride (control group) or TP (2 µg∙kg∙h, first-line group) after shock onset. In the second-line TP group, TP (2 µg∙kg∙h) was started once norepinephrine requirements exceeded 0.5 µg∙kg∙min. No significant differences were found between groups regarding survival, haemodynamics as well as fluid- and catecholamine-requirements. Kidney function and electron microscopic kidney injury were comparable between groups. In the present model of fulminant ovine septic shock, first-line TP infusion had no significant effect on fluid and norepinephrine requirements or organ dysfunction as compared to second-line TP infusion or placebo.