Advanced Vasodilatory Shock Research Articles

Experimental sepsis in pigs—effects of vasopressin on renal, hepatic, and intestinal dysfunction

Introduction. Low-dose arginine vasopressin (AVP) has been proposed as an adjunctive vasopressor for the treatment of advanced vasodilatory shock. However, its effects on renal, hepatic, and intestinal dysfunction during sepsis remain controversial.Methods. Fecal peritonitis was induced in 20 anesthetized, invasively monitored, mechanically ventilated female pigs. Following the time point of septic shock (defined as mean artery pressure (MAP) ≤65 mmHg), animals were randomly assigned to the following groups (n = 10): 1) a norepinephrine group with MAP between 65 and 75 mmHg; and 2) an AVP group with a constant infusion rate of 0.5 mU.kg-1.min-1.Results. MAP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, hematocrit, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-10 were similar in the two groups during the 28-h observation period. Infusion of AVP was associated with lower total norepinephrine and fluid requirements. There was a statistically significant improvement in renal function as assessed by increased urine output and renal blood flow, and decreased serum creatinine, in the AVP group when compared with the norepinephrine group (P < 0.05). Histological analyses of the intestine, liver, and kidney showed similar light microscopical appearance of the two groups. Apoptotic cells in the liver were significantly fewer in the AVP group when compared with the norepinephrine group (P < 0.05).Conclusion. An adjunctive AVP to norepinephrine infusion exhibits a favorable impact on renal function without deleterious effects on the liver and intestine in a porcine model of experimental sepsis when compared with norepinephrine infusion alone.

Intravenous Arginine Vasopressin Infusion in Refractory Vasodilatory Shock: A Clinical Study

To assess the efficacy of arginine vasopressin (AVP) as a rescue therapy in children with catecholamine refractory vasodilatory shock and its effect on various hemodynamic, clinical, and laboratory variables. This prospective hospital based study was conducted from January 2008 through July 2008 at a tertiary pediatric cardiac critical care unit. Twelve post cardiac surgery patients with advanced vasodilatory shock requiring intravenous vasopressin infusion longer than 60 min were included and continuous vasopressin infusion was given. The primary outcome measures were restoration of Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) after starting AVP infusion and decrease in other concurrent catecholamines requirement. The secondary outcome measures were survival to hospital discharge, adverse effects, and laboratory variables. Vasopressin was infused in the dose range of 0.0005 to 0.003 units/kg/min for a mean duration of 55.6 h. MAP improved from 41.08 ± 6.15 mmHg at baseline to 48.92 ± 10.05 mmHg after 1 h (P < 0.05), to 57.01 ± 8.30 mmHg after 4 h of AVP infusion (P < 0.001), and to 62.33 ± 8.55 mmHg after 12 h (P < 0.001), which further increased to 71.75 ± 9.55 mmHg after 24 h (P < 0.001). Inotrope score and requirement of other concurrent inotropes declined significantly in all patients after starting AVP infusion (P < 0.001). Lactate levels also declined significantly (P < 0.0001). No significant adverse effect due to end organ ischemia was observed. Only one patient expired while on vasopressin infusion due to refractory hypotension. Concurrent addition of vasopressin at an appropriate stage help improving MAP significantly with decreased dependence on high dose catecholamines without any significant adverse effects.

Best vasopressor for advanced vasodilatory shock: should vasopressin be part of the mix?

Since the publication of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, a number of additional and highly relevant studies have been published addressing the issue of vasopressor use during septic shock. While these new results are provocative, none of the studies are definitive. In sum, they suggest that maybe we should not be thinking of one vasopressor versus another in a winner-takes-all sense. Rather, we should be looking for the best balance of vasopressor agents and, further, the choice likely depends on clinical context. Clinical context may drive the choice of adrenergic agonist; for example, norepinephrine may be superior to dopamine when the potential for arrhythmias is of concern. Norepinephrine may be superior to epinephrine if elevated lactate associated with epinephrine use confounds the clinical picture. The Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) identified an effective dose of arginine vasopressin (AVP) when adrenergic agonist doses are low, but higher doses of AVP may be appropriate in the context of very high adrenergic agonist doses. The effect may be a direct beneficial AVP effect or indirect sparing of adrenergic agonist use. The choice to add AVP may also be influenced by the clinical context, including renal function or the concomitant use of corticosteroids. These interim conclusions, in truth, are hypotheses warranting randomized controlled trials adequately powered to test for survival differences in these severely ill patients.

Comparing two different arginine vasopressin doses in advanced vasodilatory shock: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial

To compare the effects of two arginine vasopressin (AVP) dose regimens on the hemodynamic response, catecholamine requirements, AVP plasma concentrations, organ function and adverse events in advanced vasodilatory shock. In this prospective, controlled, open-label trial, patients with vasodilatory shock due to sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome or after cardiac surgery requiring norepinephrine >0.6 microg/kg/min were randomized to receive a supplementary AVP infusion either at 0.033 IU/min (n = 25) or 0.067 IU/min (n = 25). The hemodynamic response, catecholamine doses, laboratory and organ function variables as well as adverse events (decrease in cardiac index or platelet count, increase in liver enzymes or bilirubin) were recorded before, 1, 12, 24 and 48 h after randomization. A linear mixed effects model was used for statistical analysis in order to account for drop-outs during the observation period. Heart rate and norepinephrine requirements decreased while MAP increased in both groups. Patients receiving AVP at 0.067 IU/min required less norepinephrine (P = 0.006) than those infused with AVP at 0.033 IU/min. Arterial lactate and base deficit decreased while arterial pH increased in both groups. During the observation period, AVP plasma levels increased in both groups (both P < 0.001), but were higher in the 0.067 IU/min group (P < 0.001) and in patients on concomitant hydrocortisone. The rate of adverse events and intensive care unit mortality was comparable between groups (0.033 IU/min, 52%; 0.067 IU/min, 52%; P = 1). A supplementary AVP infusion of 0.067 IU/min restores cardiovascular function in patients with advanced vasodilatory shock more effectively than AVP at 0.033 IU/min.

Vasopressin and ischaemic heart disease: more than coronary vasoconstriction?

During advanced vasodilatory shock, arginine vasopressin (AVP) is increasingly used to restore blood pressure and thus to reduce catecholamine requirements. The AVP-related rise in mean arterial pressure is due to systemic vasoconstriction, which, depending on the infusion rate, may also reduce coronary blood flow despite an increased coronary perfusion pressure. In a murine model of myocardial ischaemia, Indrambarya and colleagues now report that a 3-day infusion of AVP decreased the left ventricular ejection fraction, ultimately resulting in increased mortality, and thus compared unfavourably with a standard treatment using dobutamine. The AVP-related impairment myocardial dysfunction did not result from the increased left ventricular afterload but from a direct effect on cardiac contractility. Consequently, the authors conclude that the use of AVP should be cautioned in patients with underlying cardiac disease.

Clinical impact of vasopressin infusion on hemodynamics, liver and renal function in pediatric patients

To study effects of vasopressin on hemodynamic, clinical, and laboratory variables in children with advanced vasodilatory shock. Retrospective study in a multidisciplinary tertiary pediatric critical care unit. Patients (n = 117; 32 noncardiac, 85 postcardiac surgery) requiring intravenous vasopressin infusion longer than 60 min for advanced shock (January 2004 to December 2005). Vasopressin infusion (n =157). Both cardiac and noncardiac patients showed a significant decrease in inotrope requirement without change in central venous saturation or lactate during infusion. Both groups had increased urea and creatinine and decreased urine output with longer duration/higher cumulative dose of vasopressin. There was a significant increase in conjugated bilirubin level in the noncardiac group during vasopressin infusion; noncardiac patients showed higher AST levels with higher cumulative dose or longer duration of infusion. Postcardiac surgical patients showed a trend towards normal INR values which persisted after vasopressin infusion. Platelet counts were significantly lower during infusion in both groups. Vasopressin infusion improved the hemodynamic state in advanced shock without compromising cardiac function. Urine output and creatinine levels were adversely affected but were reversible. This effect was more pronounced with higher dose or duration of infusion. There was no major effect on liver function but a significant reduction in platelet counts. These data suggest that vasopressin is useful in states of vasodilatory shock with limitations regarding to its adverse renal effects and on platelet counts.

Vasopressin in vasodilatory shock: is the heart in danger?

In patients with hyperdynamic hemodynamics, infusing arginine vasopressin (AVP) in advanced vasodilatory shock is usually accompanied by a decrease in cardiac output and in visceral organ blood flow. Depending on the infusion rate, this vasoconstriction also reduces coronary blood flow despite an increased coronary perfusion pressure. In a porcine model of transitory myocardial ischemia-induced left ventricular dysfunction, Müller and colleagues now report that the AVP-related coronary vaso-constriction may impede diastolic relaxation while systolic contraction remains unaffected. Although any AVP-induced myocardial ischemia undoubtedly is a crucial safety issue, these findings need to be discussed in the context of the model design, the dosing of AVP as well as the complex direct, afterload-independent and systemic, vasoconstriction-related effects on the heart.

Comparison of two dose regimens of arginine vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock

To evaluate the effects of two arginine vasopressin (AVP) dose regimens (0.033 vs. 0.067 IU/min) on treatment efficacy, hemodynamic response, prevalence of adverse events, and changes in laboratory variables. Retrospective, controlled study. A total of 78 patients with vasodilatory shock (mean norepinephrine dosage, 1.07 microg.kg-1.min-1; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56 microg.kg-1.min-1). Supplementary infusion of AVP at 0.033 (n = 39) and 0.067 IU/min (n = 39). Cardiocirculatory, laboratory, and clinical variables were evaluated and compared between groups before and at 0.5, 1, 4, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hrs after initiation of AVP. Treatment efficacy was assessed by the increase in mean arterial blood pressure and the extent of norepinephrine reduction during the first 24 hrs of AVP therapy. Standard tests and a mixed-effects model were used for statistical analysis. Although the relative increase in mean arterial pressure was comparable between groups (0.033 vs. 0.067 IU/min: 16.8 +/- 18.4 vs. 21.4 +/- 14.9 mm Hg, p = .24), norepinephrine could be reduced significantly more often in patients receiving 0.067 IU/min. AVP at 0.067 IU/min resulted in a higher mean arterial pressure (p < .001), lower central venous pressure (p = .001), lower mean pulmonary arterial pressure (p = .04), and lower norepinephrine requirements (p < .001) during the 72-hr observation period. Increases in liver enzymes occurred more often in patients treated with 0.033 IU/min (71.8% vs. 28.2%, p < .001). The prevalence of a decrease in cardiac index (69.2% vs. 53.8%, p = .24), decrease in platelet count (94.8% vs. 84.6%, p = .26), and increase in total bilirubin (48.7% vs. 71.8%, p = .06) was not significantly different between groups. Bilirubin levels (3.1 +/- 3.4 vs. 5.2 +/- 5.5 mg/dL, p = .04) and base deficit (-7.2 +/- 4.3 vs. -3.9 +/- 5.9 mmol/L, p = .005) were lower and arterial lactate concentrations higher (76 +/- 67 vs. 46 +/- 38 mg/dL, p < .001) in patients receiving 0.033 IU/min. AVP dosages of 0.067 IU/min seem to be more effective to reverse cardiovascular failure in vasodilatory shock requiring high norepinephrine dosages than 0.033 IU/min.

Vasopressin in vasodilatory shock: hemodynamic stabilization at the cost of the liver and the kidney?

Infusing arginine vasopressin (AVP) in advanced vasodilatory shock is usually accompanied by a decrease in cardiac index and systemic oxygen transport. Whether or not such a vasoconstriction impedes regional blood flow and thus visceral organ function, even when low AVP is used, is still a matter of debate. Krejci and colleagues now report, in this issue of Critical Care, that infusing 'low-dose' AVP during early, short-term, normotensive and normodynamic fecal peritonitis-induced porcine septicemia markedly reduced both renal and portal blood flow, and consequently total hepatic blood flow, whereas hepatic arterial flow was not affected. This macrocirculatory response was concomitant with reduced kidney microcirculatory perfusion, whereas liver micro-circulation remained unchanged. From these findings the authors conclude that the use of AVP to treat hypotension should be cautioned against in patients with septic shock. Undoubtedly, given its powerful vasoconstrictor properties, which are not accompanied by positive inotropic qualities (in contrast with most of the equally potent standard care 'competitors', namely catecholamines), the safety of AVP is still a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the findings reported by Krejci and colleagues need to be discussed in the context of the model design, the timing and dosing of AVP as well as the complex interaction between visceral organ perfusion and function.

Arginin-Vasopressin im septischen und vasodilatatorischen Schock

Current therapy of septic/vasodilatory cardiovascular failure includes volume resuscitation and infusion of inotropic and vasopressor agents. Norepinephrine is the first-line vasoconstrictor, and can stabilize hemodynamic variables in most patients. Nonetheless, irreversible cardiovascular failure which is resistant to conventional hemodynamic therapies still is the main cause of death in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. In such advanced, catecholamine-resistant shock states, arginine-vasopressin (AVP) has repeatedly caused an increase in mean arterial blood pressure, a decrease in toxic norepinephrine-dosages, as well as further beneficial hemodynamic, endocrinologic and renal effects. Although AVP exerted negative inotropic effects in previous clinical trials and in selected animal experiments, a continuous low-dose AVP infusion during advanced septic/vasodilatory shock caused a decrease in cardiac index only in patients with a hyperdynamic circulation. Adverse effects on gastrointestinal circulation and the systemic microcirculation can not be excluded, but have not yet been confirmed in clinical prospective trials. Negative side effects of a supplementary AVP therapy are an increase in total bilirubin concentrations, and a decrease in platelet count. A transient increase in hepatic transaminases during AVP infusion is most likely related to preceding hypotensive episodes. Important points which must be considered when using AVP as a "rescue vasopressor" in septic/vasodilatory shock states are: 1) AVP infusion only in advanced shock states that can not be adequately reversed by conventional hemodynamic therapy (e.g. norepinephrine >0,5-0,6 mug/kg/min), 2) presence of normovolemia, 3) AVP infusion only in combination with norepinephrine, 4) strict avoidance of bolus injections and dosages >4 IU/h. Effects of a supplementary AVP infusion in advanced vasodilatory shock on survival are currently examined in a large, prospective multicenter trial in North America and Australia.

Cutaneous vascular reactivity and flow motion response to vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock and severe postoperative multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

IntroductionDisturbances in microcirculatory homeostasis have been hypothesized to play a key role in the pathophysiology of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and vasopressor-associated ischemic skin lesions. The effects of a supplementary arginine vasopressin (AVP) infusion on microcirculation in vasodilatory shock and postoperative multiple organ dysfunction syndrome are unknown.MethodIncluded in the study were 18 patients who had undergone cardiac or major surgery and had a mean arterial blood pressure below 65 mmHg, despite infusion of more than 0.5 μg/kg per min norepinephrine. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a combined infusion of AVP/norepinephrine or norepinephrine alone. Demographic and clinical data were recorded at study entry and after 1 hour. A laser Doppler flowmeter was used to measure the cutaneous microcirculatory response at randomization and after 1 hour. Reactive hyperaemia and oscillatory changes in the Doppler signal were measured during the 3 minutes before and after a 5-minute period of forearm ischaemia.ResultsPatients receiving AVP/norepinephrine had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure (P = 0.047) and higher milrinone requirements (P = 0.025) than did the patients who received norepinephrine only at baseline. Mean arterial blood pressure significantly increased (P < 0.001) and norepinephrine requirements significantly decreased (P < 0.001) in the AVP/norepinephrine group. Patients in the AVP/norepinephrine group exhibited a significantly higher oscillation frequency of the Doppler signal before ischaemia and during reperfusion at randomization. During the study period, there were no differences in either cutaneous reactive hyperaemia or the oscillatory pattern of vascular tone between groups.ConclusionSupplementary AVP infusion in patients with advanced vasodilatory shock and severe postoperative multiple organ dysfunction syndrome did not compromise cutaneous reactive hyperaemia and flowmotion when compared with norepinephrine infusion alone.

Vasopressin During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Different Shock States

Vasopressin administration may be a promising therapy in the management of various shock states. In laboratory models of cardiac arrest, vasopressin improved vital organ blood flow, cerebral oxygen delivery, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation, and neurological recovery compared with epinephrine (adrenaline). In a study of 1219 adult patients with cardiac arrest, the effects of vasopressin were similar to those of epinephrine in the management of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless electrical activity; however, vasopressin was superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole. Furthermore, vasopressin followed by epinephrine resulted in significantly higher rates of survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge. The current cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines recommend intravenous vasopressin 40 IU or epinephrine 1mg in adult patients refractory to electrical countershock. Several investigations have demonstrated that vasopressin can successfully stabilize hemodynamic variables in advanced vasodilatory shock. Use of vasopressin in vasodilatory shock should be guided by strict hemodynamic indications, such as hypotension despite norepinephrine (noradrenaline) dosages >0.5 mug/kg/min. Vasopressin must never be used as the sole vasopressor agent. In our institutional routine, a fixed vasopressin dosage of 0.067 IU/min (i.e. 100 IU/50 mL at 2 mL/h) is administered and mean arterial pressure is regulated by adjusting norepinephrine infusion. When norepinephrine dosages decrease to 0.2 microg/kg/min, vasopressin is withdrawn in small steps according to the response in mean arterial pressure. Vasopressin also improved short- and long-term survival in various porcine models of uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock. In the clinical setting, we observed positive effects of vasopressin in some patients with life-threatening hemorrhagic shock, which had no longer responded to adrenergic catecholamines and fluid resuscitation. Clinical employment of vasopressin during hemorrhagic shock is experimental at this point in time.

Vasopressin in vasodilatory shock: ensure organ blood flow, but take care of the heart!

Supplementary arginine vasopressin infusion in advanced vasodilatory shock may be accompanied by a decrease in cardiac index and systemic oxygen transport capacity in approximately 40% of patients. While a reduction of cardiac output most frequently occurs in patients with hyperdynamic circulation, it is less often observed in patients with low cardiac index. Infusion of inotropes, such as dobutamine, may be an effective strategy to restore systemic blood flow. However, when administering inotropic drugs, systemic blood flow should be increased to adequately meet systemic demands (assessed by central or mixed venous oxygen saturation) without putting an excessive beta-adrenergic stress on the heart. Overcorrection of cardiac index to hyperdynamic values with inotropes places myocardial oxygen supply at significant risk.

Arteriolar vasoconstrictive response: comparing the effects of arginine vasopressin and norepinephrine

IntroductionThis study was designed to examine differences in the arteriolar vasoconstrictive response between arginine vasopressin (AVP) and norepinephrine (NE) on the microcirculatory level in the hamster window chamber model in unanesthetized, normotonic hamsters using intravital microscopy. It is known from patients with advanced vasodilatory shock that AVP exerts strong additional vasoconstriction when incremental dosage increases of NE have no further effect on mean arterial blood pressure (MAP).MethodsIn a prospective controlled experimental study, eleven awake, male golden Syrian hamsters were instrumented with a viewing window inserted into the dorsal skinfold. NE (2 μg/kg/minute) and AVP (0.0001 IU/kg/minute, equivalent to 4 IU/h in a 70 kg patient) were continuously infused to achieve a similar increase in MAP. According to their position within the arteriolar network, arterioles were grouped into five types: A0 (branch off small artery) to A4 (branch off A3 arteriole).ResultsReduction of arteriolar diameter (NE, -31 ± 12% versus AVP, -49 ± 7%; p = 0.002), cross sectional area (NE, -49 ± 17% versus AVP, -73 ± 7%; p = 0.002), and arteriolar blood flow (NE, -62 ± 13% versus AVP, -80 ± 6%; p = 0.004) in A0 arterioles was significantly more pronounced in AVP animals. There was no difference in red blood cell velocities in A0 arterioles between groups. The reduction of diameter, cross sectional area, red blood cell velocity, and arteriolar blood flow in A1 to A4 arterioles was comparable in AVP and NE animals.ConclusionWithin the microvascular network, AVP exerted significantly stronger vasoconstriction on large A0 arterioles than NE under physiological conditions. This observation may partly explain why AVP is such a potent vasopressor hormone and can increase systemic vascular resistance even in advanced vasodilatory shock unresponsive to increases in standard catecholamine therapy.

Arginine vasopressin in 316 patients with advanced vasodilatory shock*

To assess the effects of arginine vasopressin (AVP) on hemodynamic, clinical, and laboratory variables and to determine its adverse side effects in advanced vasodilatory shock. Retrospective study. A total of 316 patients. AVP infusion (4 units/hr). Cardiocirculatory, laboratory, and clinical variables were evaluated before, 0.5, 1, 4, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hrs after administration of AVP. AVP increased mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and stroke volume index. Heart rate, central venous pressure, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, norepinephrine, milrinone, and epinephrine requirements decreased. There was no difference in the hemodynamic response between patients with septic shock, postcardiotomy shock, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Cardiac index decreased in 41.1% of patients during AVP treatment. In patients with hyperdynamic circulation before AVP, cardiac index decreased, whereas it remained uncharged or tended to increase in patients with normodynamic or hypodynamic circulation. During the course of AVP treatment, liver enzymes (28.5% of patients) and total bilirubin concentrations (69.3% of patients) increased, whereas platelet count decreased (73.4% of patients). Simultaneous hemofiltration significantly contributed to the decrease in platelet count (p < .001) and increase in bilirubin (p < .001). Whereas patients with an increase in bilirubin were more likely to die, a decrease in cardiac index or platelet count and an increase in liver enzymes did not affect mortality. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome as admission diagnosis, a high degree of multiple organ dysfunction, and norepinephrine requirements of >0.5 microg x kg x min before AVP treatment were independent risk factors for death from advanced vasodilatory shock treated with AVP. If norepinephrine dosages exceeded 0.6 microg x kg x min before AVP treatment, a substantial increase in mortality occurred. Supplementary AVP infusion improved cardiocirculatory function in advanced vasodilatory shock, but an increase in liver enzymes and bilirubin, and a decrease in platelet count occurred during AVP therapy, particularly during simultaneous hemofiltration. Initiation of AVP infusion before norepinephrine requirements exceeding 0.6 microg x kg x min may improve outcome.

Arginine vasopressin as a rescue vasopressor agent in the operating room

This review gives an overview of the current knowledge and research on the use of arginine vasopressin in cardiac arrest and severe shock states. Animal models have revealed the effectiveness of arginine vasopressin in increasing vital organ perfusion during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A multicentre trial compared arginine vasopressin and epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and documented a significant improvement in hospital discharge rates in arginine vasopressin-treated (up to 2 x 40 IU) patients with asystole, and a significant benefit of the combined administration of arginine vasopressin and epinephrine on hospital discharge, irrespective of the underlying electrocardiographic rhythm. The stabilization of advanced shock states unresponsive to conventional therapy can be achieved by supplementary arginine vasopressin (1-4 IU/h). A randomized, controlled trial found that the combined infusion of arginine vasopressin and norepinephrine was superior to norepinephrine alone in reversing advanced vasodilatory shock. Furthermore, the successful employment of arginine vasopressin in uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock and other shock states, such as anaphylaxis, hypotension during spinal/epidural anaesthesia, postcardiotomy shock, acute brain injury, brain-dead organ donors, perioperative hypotension in patients chronically treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, shock after pheochromocytoma surgery, and carcinoid crisis have been reported. Whereas arginine vasopressin in combination with epinephrine can significantly increase hospital discharge in cardiac arrest, arginine vasopressin combined with catecholamines improved haemodynamics in vasodilatory and haemorrhagic shock, but effects on outcome remain unknown. Nonetheless, in the perioperative setting, arginine vasopressin may already be considered as a potent adjunct vasopressor agent in advanced shock states unresponsive to conventional therapy.

Management of vasodilatory shock: defining the role of arginine vasopressin.

The rationale for an arginine vasopressin (argipressin) infusion was put forward after it was discovered that patients in shock states might have an endogenous arginine vasopressin deficiency. Subsequently, several investigations impressively demonstrated that arginine vasopressin can successfully stabilise haemodynamics even in advanced vasodilatory shock. We report on physiological and pharmacological aspects of arginine vasopressin, and summarise current clinical knowledge on employing a continuous arginine vasopressin infusion in critically ill patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock of different aetiologies. In view of presented experimental evidence and current clinical experience, a continuous arginine vasopressin infusion of approximately 2 to approximately 6 IU/h can be considered as a supplemental strategy to vasopressor catecholamines in order to preserve cardiocirculatory homeostasis in patients with advanced vasodilatory shock. Because data on adverse effects are still limited, arginine vasopressin should be reserved for patients in whom adequate haemodynamic stabilisation cannot be achieved with conventional vasopressor therapy or who have obvious adverse effects of catecholamines that result in further significant haemodynamic deterioration. For the same reasons, arginine vasopressin should not be used as a single, alternative vasopressor agent instead of catecholamine vasopressors. Future prospective studies will be necessary to define the exact role of arginine vasopressin in the therapy of vasodilatory shock.