Cited by 728Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentAcute Kidney Injury ResearchHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

Effect of Early Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine on Kidney Failure in Patients With Septic Shock: The VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Gordon, Anthony C., Mason, Alexina J., Thirunavukkarasu, Neeraja, Perkins, Gavin D., Cecconi, Maurizio, Cepkova, Magda, Pogson, David G., Aya, Hollmann D. +6 more·2016·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock; however, early vasopressin use has been proposed as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A factorial (2×2), double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 general adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom between February 2013 and May 2015, enrolling adult patients who had septic shock requiring vasopressors despite fluid resuscitation within a maximum of 6 hours after the onset of shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to vasopressin (titrated up to 0.06 U/min) and hydrocortisone (n = 101), vasopressin and placebo (n = 104), norepinephrine and hydrocortisone (n = 101), or norepinephrine and placebo (n = 103). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was kidney failure-free days during the 28-day period after randomization, measured as (1) the proportion of patients who never developed kidney failure and (2) median number of days alive and free of kidney failure for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both. Rates of renal replacement therapy, mortality, and serious adverse events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients (median age, 66 years; men, 58.2%) were included in the study, with a median time to study drug administration of 3.5 hours after diagnosis of shock. The number of survivors who never developed kidney failure was 94 of 165 patients (57.0%) in the vasopressin group and 93 of 157 patients (59.2%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -13.0% to 8.5%]). The median number of kidney failure-free days for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1 to -24) in the vasopressin group and 13 days (IQR, 1 to -25) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -4 days [95% CI, -11 to 5]). There was less use of renal replacement therapy in the vasopressin group than in the norepinephrine group (25.4% for vasopressin vs 35.3% for norepinephrine; difference, -9.9% [95% CI, -19.3% to -0.6%]). There was no significant difference in mortality rates between groups. In total, 22 of 205 patients (10.7%) had a serious adverse event in the vasopressin group vs 17 of 204 patients (8.3%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -3.3% to 8.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with septic shock, the early use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine did not improve the number of kidney failure-free days. Although these findings do not support the use of vasopressin to replace norepinephrine as initial treatment in this situation, the confidence interval included a potential clinically important benefit for vasopressin, and larger trials may be warranted to assess this further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ISRCTN 20769191.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.10485

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most studies on de-escalation were observational, and there are concerns that de-escalation is used primarily in patients who are getting better, so the reported improved short-term mortality should be interpreted with caution.

    “Most studies were observational, and there are concerns that de-escalation is used primarily in patients who are getting better, which is why the reported improved short-term mortality should be interpreted with caution (277,279).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [279]

    The Clinical Management passage (page unavailable) says vasopressors were reduced as patients recovered, but it does not discuss observational de-escalation studies or selection bias. The Discussion (page unavailable) reports similar mortality across this randomized trial’s treatment groups. Searches for de-escalation, observational evidence, and improved short-term mortality found no passage addressing the attributed caution. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The VANISH trial found no difference in kidney injury but vasopressin reduced risk of renal replacement therapy.

    “Although there was no difference with respect to kidney injury (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.72–1.11), vasopressin use reduced the risk of RRT (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53–0.97) [354].”
  • The VANISH trial found no significant difference between vasopressin and norepinephrine in 28-day mortality.

    “There was no significant difference between the vasopressin and norepinephrine groups in 28-day mortality [30.9% vs 27.5%; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.85–1.51).”
  • Several meta-analyses suggest decreased mortality in patients with a pressure- and volume-limited strategy for established ARDS.

    “Several meta-analyses suggest decreased mortality in patients with a pressure- and volume-limited strategy for established ARDS [353, 354].”
  • In the ADRENAL study, hydrocortisone was administered for a maximum of seven days or until ICU discharge or death; in APROCCHSS hydrocortisone was administered for seven days; in VANISH 200 mg of hydrocortisone was administered daily for 5 days and then tapered over further 6 days.

    “In the ADRENAL [479] study, hydrocortisone was administered for a maximum of seven days or until ICU discharge or death; in APROCCHSS [478] hydrocortisone was administered for seven days; in VANISH [354] 200 mg of hydrocortisone was administered daily for 5 days and then tapered over further 6 days.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gordon, A. C., Mason, A. J., Thirunavukkarasu, N., Perkins, G. D., Cecconi, M., Cepkova, M., Pogson, D. G., Aya, H. D., Anjum, A., Frazier, G. J., Santhakumaran, S., Ashby, D., Brett, S. J., & for the VANISH Investigators
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
Corresponding author
Gordon, Anthony C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2016-08-02
Volume
316
Issue
5
Pages
509
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2489536306
Cited by
728
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 12 · 2014: 1
FWCI
61.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Portsmouth
  • Intensive Care Foundation
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0514-10139, NIHR/CS/009/007, PB-PG-0610-22350)
  • Imperial College London
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
  • Barts Health NHS Trust
  • University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
septic shock, vasopressin, norepinephrine, renal failure, acute kidney injury, vasopressor therapy, cortisol, renal replacement therapy, mortality, intensive care unit patients, fluid resuscitation, serious adverse events, 90-day outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Critical Care, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Fluid Therapy, United Kingdom, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Norepinephrine, Shock, Septic, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Vasopressins, Treatment Outcome, Renal Replacement Therapy, Renal Insufficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review