Comparison of Bolus Versus Continuous Infusion of Terlipressin Cirrhotic Patients With Septic Shock.

Septic shock is a major life-threatening vasodilatory shock. Vasopressor form a crucial pharmacotherapeutic option and have long been used as the first and foremost recommended therapy.(1) However, some patients may remain refractory to catecholamine, which is also known as catecholamine-resistant septic shock.(2, 3) High-dose catecholamine therapy may lead to potential side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption, lethal arrthymias, and even the high risk of mortality. (4)Therefore, newer alternatives like dopamine, dobutamine, somatostatin, and terlipressin are also used. Cirrhosis is a state of hyperdynamic circulation, which worsens with the onset of infection. In septic shock, there is relative deficiency of vasopressin. (13) The mortality of septic shock in these patients still remains extremely high. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analogue with greater selectivity for the V1-receptors.(5) In cirrhotics with septic shock, terlipressin has been used either as a continuous intravenous infusion or as intravenous boluses. However, at present none of studies reveal which would be a better mode of administration in cirrhotics with septic shock considering the reversal of hemodynamics and safety of patients.