Vasopressin for cerebral perfusion pressure management in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial

Robert M. Van Haren, Chad M. Thorson, Michael P. Ogilvie, Evan J. Valle, Gerardo A. Guarch, Jassin A. Jouria, Alexander M. Busko, Leo T. Harris, Ross Bullock, Jonathan Jagid, Alan Livingstone, Kenneth G Proctor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: After traumatic brain injury (TBI), catecholamines (CAs) may be needed to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), but there are no recommended alternative vasopressor therapies. This is an interim report of the first study to test the hypothesis that arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a safe and effective alternative to CAs for the management of CPP in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Since 2008, all TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring at this Level 1 trauma center have been eligible for a randomized trial to receive either CA or AVP if vasopressors were required to maintain CPP greater than 60 mm Hg. RESULTS: To date, 96 patients have been consented and randomized. Demographics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar. As treated, 60 required no vasopressors and were the least severely injured group with the best outcomes. Twenty-three patients received CA (70% levophed, 22% dopamine, 9% phenylephrine) and 12 patients received AVP. The two vasopressor groups had similar demographics, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) and fluid requirements on intensive care unit Day 1 wereworse in the AVP versus the CA groups (all p G 0.05) before treatment. These differences indicate more severe injury with accompanying hemodynamic instability. Nevertheless, adverse events were not increased with AVP versus CA. Trends favored AVP versus CA, but no apparent differences were statistically significant at this interim point. There was no difference in mortality rates between CA and AVP. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that AVP is a safe and effective alternative to CA for the management of CPP after TBI and support the continued investigation and use of AVP when vasopressors are required for CPP management in TBI patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1024-1030
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Volume75
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2013

Fingerprint

Cerebrovascular Circulation
Arginine Vasopressin
Vasopressins
Catecholamines
Randomized Controlled Trials
Demography
Traumatic Brain Injury
Injury Severity Score
Vital Signs
Trauma Centers
Intracranial Pressure
Phenylephrine
Complementary Therapies
Intensive Care Units
Dopamine
Norepinephrine
Hemodynamics

Keywords

  • Catecholamines
  • Cerebral perfusion pressure
  • Traumatic brain injury
  • Vasopressors

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Vasopressin for cerebral perfusion pressure management in patients with severe traumatic brain injury : Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. / Van Haren, Robert M.; Thorson, Chad M.; Ogilvie, Michael P.; Valle, Evan J.; Guarch, Gerardo A.; Jouria, Jassin A.; Busko, Alexander M.; Harris, Leo T.; Bullock, Ross; Jagid, Jonathan; Livingstone, Alan; Proctor, Kenneth G.

In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Vol. 75, No. 6, 01.12.2013, p. 1024-1030.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Van Haren, Robert M. ; Thorson, Chad M. ; Ogilvie, Michael P. ; Valle, Evan J. ; Guarch, Gerardo A. ; Jouria, Jassin A. ; Busko, Alexander M. ; Harris, Leo T. ; Bullock, Ross ; Jagid, Jonathan ; Livingstone, Alan ; Proctor, Kenneth G. / Vasopressin for cerebral perfusion pressure management in patients with severe traumatic brain injury : Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 75, No. 6. pp. 1024-1030.
@article{2c8590362bb04977aee75f8b56fd828b,
title = "Vasopressin for cerebral perfusion pressure management in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: After traumatic brain injury (TBI), catecholamines (CAs) may be needed to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), but there are no recommended alternative vasopressor therapies. This is an interim report of the first study to test the hypothesis that arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a safe and effective alternative to CAs for the management of CPP in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Since 2008, all TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring at this Level 1 trauma center have been eligible for a randomized trial to receive either CA or AVP if vasopressors were required to maintain CPP greater than 60 mm Hg. RESULTS: To date, 96 patients have been consented and randomized. Demographics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar. As treated, 60 required no vasopressors and were the least severely injured group with the best outcomes. Twenty-three patients received CA (70{\%} levophed, 22{\%} dopamine, 9{\%} phenylephrine) and 12 patients received AVP. The two vasopressor groups had similar demographics, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) and fluid requirements on intensive care unit Day 1 wereworse in the AVP versus the CA groups (all p G 0.05) before treatment. These differences indicate more severe injury with accompanying hemodynamic instability. Nevertheless, adverse events were not increased with AVP versus CA. Trends favored AVP versus CA, but no apparent differences were statistically significant at this interim point. There was no difference in mortality rates between CA and AVP. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that AVP is a safe and effective alternative to CA for the management of CPP after TBI and support the continued investigation and use of AVP when vasopressors are required for CPP management in TBI patients.",
keywords = "Catecholamines, Cerebral perfusion pressure, Traumatic brain injury, Vasopressors",
author = "{Van Haren}, {Robert M.} and Thorson, {Chad M.} and Ogilvie, {Michael P.} and Valle, {Evan J.} and Guarch, {Gerardo A.} and Jouria, {Jassin A.} and Busko, {Alexander M.} and Harris, {Leo T.} and Ross Bullock and Jonathan Jagid and Alan Livingstone and Proctor, {Kenneth G}",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/TA.0b013e3182a99d48",
language = "English",
volume = "75",
pages = "1024--1030",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vasopressin for cerebral perfusion pressure management in patients with severe traumatic brain injury

T2 - Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial

AU - Van Haren, Robert M.

AU - Thorson, Chad M.

AU - Ogilvie, Michael P.

AU - Valle, Evan J.

AU - Guarch, Gerardo A.

AU - Jouria, Jassin A.

AU - Busko, Alexander M.

AU - Harris, Leo T.

AU - Bullock, Ross

AU - Jagid, Jonathan

AU - Livingstone, Alan

AU - Proctor, Kenneth G

PY - 2013/12/1

Y1 - 2013/12/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: After traumatic brain injury (TBI), catecholamines (CAs) may be needed to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), but there are no recommended alternative vasopressor therapies. This is an interim report of the first study to test the hypothesis that arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a safe and effective alternative to CAs for the management of CPP in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Since 2008, all TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring at this Level 1 trauma center have been eligible for a randomized trial to receive either CA or AVP if vasopressors were required to maintain CPP greater than 60 mm Hg. RESULTS: To date, 96 patients have been consented and randomized. Demographics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar. As treated, 60 required no vasopressors and were the least severely injured group with the best outcomes. Twenty-three patients received CA (70% levophed, 22% dopamine, 9% phenylephrine) and 12 patients received AVP. The two vasopressor groups had similar demographics, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) and fluid requirements on intensive care unit Day 1 wereworse in the AVP versus the CA groups (all p G 0.05) before treatment. These differences indicate more severe injury with accompanying hemodynamic instability. Nevertheless, adverse events were not increased with AVP versus CA. Trends favored AVP versus CA, but no apparent differences were statistically significant at this interim point. There was no difference in mortality rates between CA and AVP. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that AVP is a safe and effective alternative to CA for the management of CPP after TBI and support the continued investigation and use of AVP when vasopressors are required for CPP management in TBI patients.

AB - BACKGROUND: After traumatic brain injury (TBI), catecholamines (CAs) may be needed to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), but there are no recommended alternative vasopressor therapies. This is an interim report of the first study to test the hypothesis that arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a safe and effective alternative to CAs for the management of CPP in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Since 2008, all TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring at this Level 1 trauma center have been eligible for a randomized trial to receive either CA or AVP if vasopressors were required to maintain CPP greater than 60 mm Hg. RESULTS: To date, 96 patients have been consented and randomized. Demographics, vital signs, and laboratory values were similar. As treated, 60 required no vasopressors and were the least severely injured group with the best outcomes. Twenty-three patients received CA (70% levophed, 22% dopamine, 9% phenylephrine) and 12 patients received AVP. The two vasopressor groups had similar demographics, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) and fluid requirements on intensive care unit Day 1 wereworse in the AVP versus the CA groups (all p G 0.05) before treatment. These differences indicate more severe injury with accompanying hemodynamic instability. Nevertheless, adverse events were not increased with AVP versus CA. Trends favored AVP versus CA, but no apparent differences were statistically significant at this interim point. There was no difference in mortality rates between CA and AVP. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that AVP is a safe and effective alternative to CA for the management of CPP after TBI and support the continued investigation and use of AVP when vasopressors are required for CPP management in TBI patients.

KW - Catecholamines

KW - Cerebral perfusion pressure

KW - Traumatic brain injury

KW - Vasopressors

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890043052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890043052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182a99d48

DO - 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182a99d48

M3 - Article

C2 - 24256677

AN - SCOPUS:84890043052

VL - 75

SP - 1024

EP - 1030

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 6

ER -