Vasopressin

World Peptide Foundation

Where is Vasopressin being studied?

Find registered human studies, phases, products, recruitment status and reported research locations around the world. Registry search matches are separate from this profile’s reviewed evidence.

Find studies for Vasopressin →Worldwide registry directory

Scientific intelligence record

Experience 2.0

Endogenous neurohypophyseal nonapeptide / vasopressor medicine

Arginine vasopressin, also called argipressin or antidiuretic hormone, is an endogenous cyclic nonapeptide synthesized in hypothalamic neurons and released from the posterior pituitary. V1a-receptor activation constricts vascular smooth muscle, V2-receptor activation promotes renal water reabsorption through aquaporin-2 trafficking, and additional receptor signaling contributes to pituitary, hemostatic, and central effects. Pharmaceutical vasopressin is used in tightly defined clinical contexts, notably as an intravenous vasopressor for vasodilatory shock in the United States; endogenous physiology, diagnostic biomarkers, receptor antagonists, analogs, and investigational intranasal research must remain distinct.

Record status

Traceability partial

Last meaningful update: 9/20/2026

Evidence searched through:: Not recorded
Assessment updated:: 9/20/2026
Documented human review:: No documented human review recorded
Automated scientific assessment:: None recorded
AI source check:: 9/26/2026

Published source links and profile text pass separate gates. Only a documented human review is labelled as human review; an automated scientific assessment applies deterministic checks, and an AI source check confirms only that a source exists and matches its identifiers. A source count alone does not establish a review.

Evidence coverage has three distinct layers. The corpus count is a transparent screening inventory, the featured set contains study-level tiering and interpretation, and the published-source count contains records promoted through the institutional publication workflow. Source validation, editorial publication, and scientific appraisal are separate decisions; these numbers must not be merged.

Ranked research corpus

500

Categorized publications with provisional ranking; scientific review remains separate.

Featured tiered studies

Cornerstone publications with study-level interpretation, limitations, and tier disclosure.

Research domains

Clinical and scientific questions synthesized independently across the evidence atlas.

Published source records

Database records promoted through the governed publication workflow—not the corpus total.

Corpus generated 2026-09-18. Counts remain separately labeled so screening is not represented as completed review.

Human experience · separate evidence stream

No community pattern is displayed yet

Eligible observations remain below the privacy and reliability threshold. WPF will not convert a handful of reports into a percentage, trend, or clinical claim.

Observation is valuable human context. It is not evidence of causation, efficacy, or safety.

Public display gate

n ≥ 20 eligible observations

Exact progress remains private before the threshold.

Contribute an observation Archive details

Intelligence snapshot

The state of the record

A compact view of what is represented, what remains unresolved, and how completely the record can be traced.

Ranked research corpus

500

Categorized screening records; proposed rankings remain pending human appraisal.

Featured tiered studies

Cornerstone studies with published study-level interpretation and tier disclosure.

Research domains

Independent evidence dossiers covering the major research questions.

Published source records

Source records published through the governed workflow; this count does not certify scientific conclusions.

Contradictions

Conflicting evidence relationships that remain visible.

Research gaps

Questions the current record identifies as unresolved.

Connected media

Media records explicitly linked to this scientific record.

What we know

Evidence, claims, and boundaries

The project separates represented evidence from qualification, contradiction, uncertainty, and what the evidence does not establish.

Reconciled domain conclusions

6 published domain syntheses connected to 0 featured studies

Vasopressin no longer relies on the legacy “no public claim” state. Each research domain publishes a bounded synthesis, confidence level, evidence context, limitations, geographic applicability, regulatory interpretation, and research gaps. Publication of these syntheses is separate from the scientific review status shown above.

Inspect the reconciled evidence atlas

Evidence boundary

Featured evidence

Domain links

See graph

Contradicting

With explicit limits

What this does not establish

• The governed 25-source corpus emphasizes randomized trials and systematic reviews of vasopressin in septic and vasoplegic shock, including renal, mortality, hemodynamic, dose, pediatric, cancer, and cardiac-surgery contexts. Separate evidence lanes cover cardiac arrest, portal-variceal bleeding, gynecologic local injection, human vascular pharmacology, and safety. PubMed identities, titles, authorship, publication metadata, DOI/PMID, direct vasopressin relevance, source status, and duplication were verified. Studies of desmopressin, terlipressin, receptor antagonists, or copeptin were excluded from the core therapeutic corpus unless directly necessary for clearly labeled context.
• Vasopressin can cause excessive vasoconstriction and ischemia involving cardiac, mesenteric, digital, or cutaneous circulations; reduced cardiac output, arrhythmias, hyponatremia or water-balance disturbances, and extravasation-related injury are additional concerns depending on route and context. Risk varies with shock phenotype, dose, duration, concomitant catecholamines, vascular disease, and monitoring. Local intramyometrial injection and historical gastrointestinal-bleeding or cardiac-arrest protocols are not interchangeable with labeled intravenous vasodilatory-shock use. Canadian and U.S. products cited here differ in routes, indications, formulation, and safety instructions.
• The presence of published evidence does not by itself establish safety, efficacy, causation or clinical benefit.

Inspect the published evidence record25 governed records · titles, provenance, and original-source linksOpen records ↓

2003Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Grade guide: A+/A is the strongest represented support; B+/B is substantial but qualified; C is limited, indirect, observational, or preclinical; D/E is weak, mechanistic-only, anecdotal, or insufficient.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Intra-arterial vasopressin in the human forearm: pharmacodynamics and the role of nitric oxide.

Diverse vascular effects have been ascribed to vasopressin, including the potential to cause vasodilation, vasoconstriction, and nitric oxide release.

Authors: Jonathan T Affolter, Sinéad P McKee, Ahmed Helmy, C Richard Jones, David E Newby, David J Webb
Source: Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9236(03)00065-1
PubMed: 12844130

Open original source

2010Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 85/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

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.

Authors: Christian Torgersen, Martin W Dünser, Volker Wenzel, Stefan Jochberger, Viktoria Mayr, Christian A Schmittinger, Ingo Lorenz, Stefan Schmid, Martin Westphal, Wilhelm Grander, Günter Luckner
Source: Intensive care medicine
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1630-1
PubMed: 19756505

Open original source

2009Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin in pediatric vasodilatory shock: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Vasopressin has been proposed as a potent vasoactive agent in the treatment of vasodilatory shock in adults and children.

Authors: Karen Choong, Desmond Bohn, Douglas D Fraser, Isabelle Gaboury, James S Hutchison, Ari R Joffe, Catherine Litalien, Kusum Menon, Patrick McNamara, Roxanne E Ward, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Source: American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200902-0221oc
PubMed: 19608718

Open original source

2001Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin versus epinephrine for inhospital cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial.

Survival rates for cardiac arrest patients, both in and out of hospital, are poor.

Authors: I G Stiell, P C Hébert, G A Wells, K L Vandemheen, A S Tang, L A Higginson, J F Dreyer, C Clement, E Battram, I Watpool, S Mason, T Klassen
Source: Lancet (London, England)
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05328-4
PubMed: 11463411

Open original source

2008Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock.

Vasopressin is commonly used as an adjunct to catecholamines to support blood pressure in refractory septic shock, but its effect on mortality is unknown.

Authors: James A Russell, Keith R Walley, Joel Singer, Anthony C Gordon, Paul C Hébert, D James Cooper, Cheryl L Holmes, Sangeeta Mehta, John T Granton, Michelle M Storms, Deborah J Cook, Jeffrey J Presneill
Source: The New England journal of medicine
DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa067373
PubMed: 18305265

Open original source

2017Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial.

Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes.

Authors: Ludhmila Abrahao Hajjar, Jean Louis Vincent, Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas, Andrew Rhodes, Giovanni Landoni, Eduardo Atsushi Osawa, Renato Rosa Melo, Marcia Rodrigues Sundin, Solimar Miranda Grande, Fabio A Gaiotto, Pablo Maria Pomerantzeff, Luis Oliveira Dallan
Source: Anesthesiology
DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000001434
PubMed: 27841822

Open original source

2016Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

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

Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock; however, early vasopressin use has been proposed as an alternative.

Authors: Anthony C Gordon, Alexina J Mason, Neeraja Thirunavukkarasu, Gavin D Perkins, Maurizio Cecconi, Magda Cepkova, David G Pogson, Hollmann D Aya, Aisha Anjum, Gregory J Frazier, Shalini Santhakumaran, Deborah Ashby
Source: JAMA
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.10485
PubMed: 27483065

Open original source

2019Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock.

Authors: Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar, Cristiane Zambolim, Alessandro Belletti, Juliano Pinheiro de Almeida, Anthony C Gordon, Gisele Oliveira, Clarice Hyesuk Lee Park, Julia Tizue Fukushima, Stephanie Itala Rizk, Tais Felix Szeles, Nestor Cordeiro Dos Santos Neto, Roberto Kalil Filho
Source: Critical care medicine
DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0000000000004023
PubMed: 31609774

Open original source

2025Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Reduction of norepinephrine versus vasopressin in the stabilization phase of septic shock: RENOVA clinical trial.

Evaluate the incidence of hypotension during the weaning phase of vasopressors.

Authors: Cássio Mallmann, Thizá Maria Bianchi Galiotto, Michele Salibe de Oliveira, Rafael Barberena Moraes
Source: Medicina intensiva
DOI: 10.1016/j.medine.2025.502147
PubMed: 39890531

Open original source

1975Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Intraarterial vasopressin in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a prospective, controlled clinical trial.

Intraarterial vasopressin has been reported to be effective in the treatment of massive upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Authors: H O Conn, G R Ramsby, E H Storer, M G Mutchnick, P H Joshi, M M Phillips, G A Cohen, G N Fields, D Petroski
Source: Gastroenterology
PubMed: 803910

Open original source

2017Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Dilute versus concentrated vasopressin administration during laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

To determine if higher-volume, fixed-dose administration of vasopressin further reduces blood loss at the time of minimally invasive myomectomy.

Authors: S L Cohen, S Senapati, A R Gargiulo, S S Srouji, F F Tu, J Solnik, H-C Hur, A Vitonis, G M Jonsdottir, K C Wang, J I Einarsson
Source: BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14179
PubMed: 27362908

Open original source

2019Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Safety and Efficacy of Vasopressin After Fontan Completion: A Randomized Pilot Study.

Arginine vasopressin is a nonapeptide hormone with effects on intracellular water transport and arterial tone that is used in distributive shock and following cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors: Amee M Bigelow, Nancy S Ghanayem, Nathan E Thompson, John P Scott, Laura D Cassidy, Katherine J Woods, Ronald K Woods, Michael E Mitchell, Viktor Hraŝka, George M Hoffman
Source: The Annals of thoracic surgery
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.06.053
PubMed: 31400337

Open original source

2018Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Comparison of intramyometrial vasopressin plus rectal misoprostol with intramyometrial vasopressin alone to decrease blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy: Randomized clinical trial.

To compare the efficacy and safety of intramyometrial vasopressin plus rectal misoprostol with intramyometrial vasopressin alone to reduce blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy.

Authors: Sonal Srivastava, Reeta Mahey, Garima Kachhawa, Neerja Bhatla, Ashish Datt Upadhyay, Alka Kriplani
Source: European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.006
PubMed: 30056355

Open original source

1996Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

A randomized comparison of vasopressin and tourniquet as hemostatic agents during myomectomy.

To assess the comparative efficacy of perivascular vasopressin and tourniquet in minimizing bleeding and its sequelae at myomectomy.

Authors: H Fletcher, J Frederick, M Hardie, D Simeon
Source: Obstetrics and gynecology
DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00071-3
PubMed: 8649682

Open original source

1984Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Controlled trial of vasopressin and balloon tamponade in bleeding esophageal varices.

In a randomized controlled trial, the effect of continuous intravenous administration of vasopressin was compared with Sengstaken-Blakemore balloon tamponade in 37 episodes of bleeding esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors: J Pinto Correia, M Martins Alves, P Alexandrino, J Silveira
Source: Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
DOI: 10.1002/hep.1840040515
PubMed: 6383998

Open original source

2015Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin does not raise cardiac enzymes following cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between intraoperative vasopressin infusion and postoperative cardiac enzymes.

Authors: Yasuhisa Okamoto, Toshihiro Nohmi, Yuki Higa, Kouichiro Seki, Akihide Yamashita
Source: Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2014.07.007
PubMed: 25440643

Open original source

2003Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

A double-blind randomized trial: prophylactic vasopressin reduces hypotension after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) predisposes patients to vasodilatory hypotension after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

Authors: David L S Morales, Mauricio J Garrido, John D Madigan, David N Helman, Joseph Faber, Mathew R Williams, Donald W Landry, Mehmet C Oz
Source: The Annals of thoracic surgery
DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)04408-9
PubMed: 12645718

Open original source

2009Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Pilot safety study of low-dose vasopressin in non-septic critically ill children.

To assess the safety of low-dose vasopressin infusion in critically ill children requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) at risk of developing sedation/analgesia-related hypotension.

Authors: Elisa Baldasso, Pedro Celiny Ramos Garcia, Jefferson Pedro Piva, Ricardo Garcia Branco, Robert Charles Tasker
Source: Intensive care medicine
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1392-1
PubMed: 19132338

Open original source

2006Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

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

Disturbances 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.

Authors: Günter Luckner, Martin W Dünser, Karl-Heinz Stadlbauer, Viktoria D Mayr, Stefan Jochberger, Volker Wenzel, Hanno Ulmer, Werner Pajk, Walter R Hasibeder, Barbara Friesenecker, Hans Knotzer
Source: Critical care (London, England)
DOI: 10.1186/cc4845
PubMed: 16542484

Open original source

2006Phase 1–2 human evidence

Evidence strength B · 80/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin or norepinephrine in early hyperdynamic septic shock: a randomized clinical trial.

To compare the effects of arginine-vasopressin (AVP) and norepinephrine (NE) on hemodynamic variables, organ dysfunction, and adverse events in early hyperdynamic septic shock.

Authors: François Lauzier, Bruno Lévy, Patrice Lamarre, Olivier Lesur
Source: Intensive care medicine
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-006-0378-0
PubMed: 17019548

Open original source

2018Observational human evidence

Evidence strength A · 88/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressin in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

To summarize the results of randomized controlled trials on the use of vasopressin as a vasopressor agent in cardiac surgery.

Authors: Martin W Dünser, Olivier Bouvet, Hans Knotzer, Nish Arulkumaran, Ludhmila Abrahao Hajjar, Hanno Ulmer, Walter R Hasibeder
Source: Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2018.04.006
PubMed: 29748077

Open original source

2023Observational human evidence

Evidence strength A · 88/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS.

Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP.

Authors: Lu Jia, Pufeng Wang, Cong Li, Jianfeng Xie
Source: Shock (Augusta, Ga.)
DOI: 10.1097/shk.0000000000002193
PubMed: 37548686

Open original source

2015Observational human evidence

Evidence strength A · 88/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock.

Authors: Tomer Avni, Adi Lador, Shaul Lev, Leonard Leibovici, Mical Paul, Alon Grossman
Source: PloS one
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305
PubMed: 26237037

Open original source

2024Observational human evidence

Evidence strength A · 88/100 · ProvisionalHow this is rated

This score estimates how strongly this source can support scientific claims. It is not a prestige score, and the grade does not transfer automatically to every claim that cites the source.

Directness: 70/100
Replication: 70/100

Provisional ratings are automated baselines from structured metadata. They are not completed full-text risk-of-bias reviews and may change after editorial assessment.

Methodology: WPF-ESR-1.0

Non-adrenergic vasopressors for vasodilatory shock or perioperative vasoplegia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Excessive exposure to adrenergic vasopressors may be harmful.

Authors: Yuki Kotani, Alessandro Belletti, Filippo D'Amico, Alessandra Bonaccorso, Patrick M Wieruszewski, Tomoko Fujii, Ashish K Khanna, Giovanni Landoni, Rinaldo Bellomo
Source: Critical care (London, England)
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-05212-7
PubMed: 39736782

Open original source

2019Observational human evidence

Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the possible benefits and harms of vasopressin therapy in adults with septic shock both overall and in pre-defined subgroups.

Authors: Myura Nagendran, James A Russell, Keith R Walley, Stephen J Brett, Gavin D Perkins, Ludhmila Hajjar, Alexina J Mason, Deborah Ashby, Anthony C Gordon
Source: Intensive care medicine
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05620-2
PubMed: 31062052

Open original source

Scientific context

Chemistry and represented biological context

Existing reviewed chemistry is preserved as scientific context. Chemistry and mechanism information do not establish clinical efficacy or safety.

Open chemistry and biological context ↓

Chemical identity

Molecular and structural record

Structured record

Molecular formula: C46H65N15O12S2
Molecular weight (Da): 1084.2
Amino acid sequence: CYFQNCPRG-NH2; Cys1-Cys6 disulfide
SMILES: C1C[C@H](N(C1)C(=O)[C@@H]2CSSC[C@@H](C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N[C@H](C(=O)N2)CC(=O)N)CCC(=O)N)CC3=CC=CC=C3)CC4=CC=C(C=C4)O)N)C(=O)N[C@@H](CCCN=C(N)N)C(=O)NCC(=O)N
InChI: InChI=1S/C46H65N15O12S2/c47-27-22-74-75-23-33(45(73)61-17-5-9-34(61)44(72)56-28(8-4-16-53-46(51)52)39(67)54-21-37(50)65)60-43(71)32(20-36(49)64)59-40(68)29(14-15-35(48)63)55-41(69)31(18-24-6-2-1-3-7-24)58-42(70)30(57-38(27)66)19-25-10-12-26(62)13-11-25/h1-3,6-7,10-13,27-34,62H,4-5,8-9,14-23,47H2,(H2,48,63)(H2,49,64)(H2,50,65)(H,54,67)(H,55,69)(H,56,72)(H,57,66)(H,58,70)(H,59,68)(H,60,71)(H4,51,52,53)/t27-,28-,29-,30-,31-,32-,33-,34-/m0/s1
InChIKey: KBZOIRJILGZLEJ-LGYYRGKSSA-N

Chemical identity describes the recorded molecular information. It does not establish biological activity, clinical efficacy, safety, or therapeutic suitability.

Explore further

Continue through the research system

Move from this peptide record into the project's broader evidence, research, comparison, and methodology systems.

Compare peptides

Examine represented peptide records side by side.

Evidence system

Explore how scientific evidence is represented and reviewed.

Research hub

Enter the broader research and intelligence environment.

Methodology

Review project methods, boundaries, and interpretation rules.

Research

How the scientific record is developing

Chronology, unresolved research questions, opportunities, and researcher activity remain descriptive rather than evaluative.

Research chronology

1975 · study · Temporal status not established
Intraarterial vasopressin in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a prospective, controlled clinical trial.
Gastroenterology
1984 · study · Temporal status not established
Controlled trial of vasopressin and balloon tamponade in bleeding esophageal varices.
Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
1996 · study · Temporal status not established
A randomized comparison of vasopressin and tourniquet as hemostatic agents during myomectomy.
Obstetrics and gynecology
2001 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin versus epinephrine for inhospital cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet (London, England)
2003 · study · Temporal status not established
Intra-arterial vasopressin in the human forearm: pharmacodynamics and the role of nitric oxide.
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
2003 · study · Temporal status not established
A double-blind randomized trial: prophylactic vasopressin reduces hypotension after cardiopulmonary bypass.
The Annals of thoracic surgery
2006 · study · Temporal status not established
Cutaneous vascular reactivity and flow motion response to vasopressin in advanced vasodilatory shock and severe postoperative multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.
Critical care (London, England)
2006 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin or norepinephrine in early hyperdynamic septic shock: a randomized clinical trial.
Intensive care medicine
2008 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock.
The New England journal of medicine
2009 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin in pediatric vasodilatory shock: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine
2009 · study · Temporal status not established
Pilot safety study of low-dose vasopressin in non-septic critically ill children.
Intensive care medicine
2010 · study · Temporal status not established
Comparing two different arginine vasopressin doses in advanced vasodilatory shock: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial.
Intensive care medicine
2015 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin does not raise cardiac enzymes following cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.
Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
2015 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
PloS one
2016 · study · Temporal status not established
Effect of Early Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine on Kidney Failure in Patients With Septic Shock: The VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA
2017 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial.
Anesthesiology
2017 · study · Temporal status not established
Dilute versus concentrated vasopressin administration during laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomised controlled trial.
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
2018 · study · Temporal status not established
Comparison of intramyometrial vasopressin plus rectal misoprostol with intramyometrial vasopressin alone to decrease blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy: Randomized clinical trial.
European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
2018 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
2019 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.
Critical care medicine
2019 · study · Temporal status not established
Safety and Efficacy of Vasopressin After Fontan Completion: A Randomized Pilot Study.
The Annals of thoracic surgery
2019 · study · Temporal status not established
Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Intensive care medicine
2023 · study · Temporal status not established
THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS.
Shock (Augusta, Ga.)
2024 · study · Temporal status not established
Non-adrenergic vasopressors for vasodilatory shock or perioperative vasoplegia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Critical care (London, England)
2025 · study · Temporal status not established
Reduction of norepinephrine versus vasopressin in the stabilization phase of septic shock: RENOVA clinical trial.
Medicina intensiva
2026 · regulatory · Temporal status not established
Regulatory review: approved
Canada (Health Canada — Vasopressin Injection USP DIN 02139502)
2026 · regulatory · Temporal status not established
Regulatory review: approved
United States (FDA — VASOSTRICT)

The represented chronology reflects records currently included in the governed dataset and does not claim to represent the entire scientific literature.

What still needs investigation

Claim traceability

No institutional claim record is currently represented for this peptide.

2 represented evidence records

Years represented: 2008, 2019

Publishing organizations appearing in records: Intensive care medicine, The New England journal of medicine

Connections

Follow the scientific relationships

Connections appear only when they are represented by the project’s underlying records.

Reviewer provenance state

“Human scientist reviewed: no” means that specific source-path attribution is not recorded. It does not silently negate the separate publication-review state.

Domain conclusion → Evidence

Connected

Evidence → Source

Connected

Source → Original record

Connected

Traceability documents how the project connects statements to records. It does not establish that a source is scientifically valid or that a claim is clinically true.

Reconciled for 6 domain conclusions and 0 featured studies.

Detailed study-to-domain mappings and original-source paths appear in the Vasopressin evidence-governance section.

Inspect the ranked source records

Observational archive

What contributors reported

Observational archive data is intentionally separated from published scientific evidence.

Observational boundary

Insufficient eligible observations are available for display under the current filters.

Insufficient eligible observations are currently represented to display aggregated findings for this peptide.

Regulatory context

Published jurisdictional records

Regulatory status is jurisdiction-specific and time-dependent. It is presented as context, not as a recommendation for use or a substitute for scientific evidence evaluation.

Canada (Health Canada — Vasopressin Injection USP DIN 02139502)

Regulator: Vasopressin Injection USP DIN 02139502)

approved

As of: 9/10/2026 · Temporal status not established

Health Canada — Importation of US-Authorized Vasopressin Injection during Canadian shortage

United States (FDA — VASOSTRICT)

Regulator: VASOSTRICT)

approved

As of: 9/10/2026 · Temporal status not established

FDA Drugs@FDA — VASOSTRICT NDA 204485

Research + media

Media connected to this scientific record

Only media explicitly linked through the project’s relationship system appears here.

No scientifically connected media is currently represented for this peptide.

Sources + provenance

Read the scientific record with its boundaries intact

The public record organizes reviewed evidence; it does not establish scientific truth by itself.

Association, mechanism, observation and regulatory status must not be represented as proof of clinical efficacy or safety.

Observational reports describe contributor experiences and cannot establish causation, effectiveness, safety or clinical benefit.

Contradictory and qualifying evidence must remain visible rather than being silently discarded.

Absence of represented evidence is not evidence that research does not exist.

Research gaps identify unresolved questions; they are not negative conclusions.

Regulatory status is distinct from scientific evidence quality.

Media relationships provide context and explanation; they do not increase the strength of scientific evidence.

A section with no represented records is an incomplete project record, not a scientific conclusion.

Researcher and institutional relationships are shown only when supported by represented records and must not be interpreted as rankings or endorsements.

Generated: 11/8/2026, 5:24:52 PM

global evidence atlas

Vasopressin research, ranked and separated by purpose

This is a deduplicated literature screening registry—not a claim that every mention directly proves efficacy or safety. Machine proposals remain visibly separate from governed human appraisal.

720Discoverable source universe

500Ranked screening records

6Research domains

0Accountably approved conclusions

SearchDomainEvidence class

Vasopressin: what this atlas does and does not establish

Last checked: 2026-09-18
Accountable publication approval: Not yet approved by a named accountable reviewer. Machine screening only.

No new outcome conclusion is inferred from discovery metadata. Named accountable approval is required for governed scientific conclusions.

Regulatory status by jurisdiction

Absence of a record in this pass is not proof that no authorization exists. Status must remain jurisdiction-, product-, formulation-, and date-specific.

Canada (Health Canada — Vasopressin Injection USP DIN 02139502)approvedchecked 2026-09-10
Health Canada identifies a Canadian-authorized vasopressin injection product for intramuscular or subcutaneous administration in specified indications including postoperative abdominal distention, abdominal radiography, and diabetes insipidus; a March 4, 2026 communication also addresses temporary exceptional importation of a different U.S.-authorized IV product during shortage.
Health Canada — Importation of US-Authorized Vasopressin Injection during Canadian shortage
United States (FDA — VASOSTRICT)approvedchecked 2026-09-10
VASOSTRICT vasopressin intravenous solution is FDA-approved to increase blood pressure in adults with vasodilatory shock who remain hypotensive despite fluids and catecholamines, according to current labeling.
FDA Drugs@FDA — VASOSTRICT NDA 204485

5 FDA structured product label record(s) were identified for this compound name in openFDA. Label presence reflects an approved product exists under that name; it is not a claim about the specific formulation, dose, or use being discussed anywhere else on this page.

No machine-proposed evidence-strength grades exist yet for this compound; all screening records are unassigned pending further review.

Vasopressin evidence · ranking key

How evidence is ranked

A tier describes the evidentiary role and design strength of a source. It is not a popularity score, proof that every conclusion is correct, or a substitute for claim-level review.

Practice-defining evidence

Large, well-conducted randomized trials; prespecified major outcomes; rigorous systematic reviews or meta-analyses; and major regulatory assessments.

Strong supporting evidence

Smaller randomized trials, strong prospective cohorts, prespecified secondary analyses, and high-quality comparative-effectiveness studies.

Contextual evidence

Retrospective cohorts, claims-database studies, pharmacovigilance analyses, mechanistic human research, and well-documented case series.

Signal-generating evidence

Case reports, conference abstracts, preclinical research, hypothesis-generating analyses, and expert commentary.

Tier and confidence answer different questions

Tier classifies source design and evidentiary role. Confidence reflects risk of bias, sample size, comparator quality, outcome relevance, follow-up, missing data, directness, replication, reporting quality, and whether conclusions stay within the measured results.

Funding and conflicts are disclosed and considered, but sponsorship never automatically changes a tier. Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern override the original rating.

Suggested citation

APA
World Peptide Foundation. (n.d.). Vasopressin — Peptide Scientific Intelligence. World Peptide Foundation. (Updated September 20, 2026.) https://www.worldpeptidefoundation.org/directory/vasopressin
AMA / Vancouver
World Peptide Foundation. Vasopressin — Peptide Scientific Intelligence. World Peptide Foundation website. Updated September 20, 2026. https://www.worldpeptidefoundation.org/directory/vasopressin

Where is Vasopressin being studied?

Vasopressin

No community pattern is displayed yet

The state of the record

Evidence, claims, and boundaries

6 published domain syntheses connected to 0 featured studies

Intra-arterial vasopressin in the human forearm: pharmacodynamics and the role of nitric oxide.

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

Vasopressin in pediatric vasodilatory shock: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Vasopressin versus epinephrine for inhospital cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial.

Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock.

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial.

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

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Reduction of norepinephrine versus vasopressin in the stabilization phase of septic shock: RENOVA clinical trial.

Intraarterial vasopressin in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a prospective, controlled clinical trial.

Dilute versus concentrated vasopressin administration during laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

Safety and Efficacy of Vasopressin After Fontan Completion: A Randomized Pilot Study.

Comparison of intramyometrial vasopressin plus rectal misoprostol with intramyometrial vasopressin alone to decrease blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy: Randomized clinical trial.

A randomized comparison of vasopressin and tourniquet as hemostatic agents during myomectomy.

Controlled trial of vasopressin and balloon tamponade in bleeding esophageal varices.

Vasopressin does not raise cardiac enzymes following cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

A double-blind randomized trial: prophylactic vasopressin reduces hypotension after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Pilot safety study of low-dose vasopressin in non-septic critically ill children.

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

Vasopressin or norepinephrine in early hyperdynamic septic shock: a randomized clinical trial.

Vasopressin in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS.

Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Non-adrenergic vasopressors for vasodilatory shock or perioperative vasoplegia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Chemistry and represented biological context

Molecular and structural record

Continue through the research system

Research discovery

How the scientific record is developing

Research chronology

Intraarterial vasopressin in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a prospective, controlled clinical trial.

Controlled trial of vasopressin and balloon tamponade in bleeding esophageal varices.

A randomized comparison of vasopressin and tourniquet as hemostatic agents during myomectomy.

Vasopressin versus epinephrine for inhospital cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial.

Intra-arterial vasopressin in the human forearm: pharmacodynamics and the role of nitric oxide.

A double-blind randomized trial: prophylactic vasopressin reduces hypotension after cardiopulmonary bypass.

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

Vasopressin or norepinephrine in early hyperdynamic septic shock: a randomized clinical trial.

Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock.

Vasopressin in pediatric vasodilatory shock: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Pilot safety study of low-dose vasopressin in non-septic critically ill children.

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

Vasopressin does not raise cardiac enzymes following cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial.

Dilute versus concentrated vasopressin administration during laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

Comparison of intramyometrial vasopressin plus rectal misoprostol with intramyometrial vasopressin alone to decrease blood loss during laparoscopic myomectomy: Randomized clinical trial.

Vasopressin in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Safety and Efficacy of Vasopressin After Fontan Completion: A Randomized Pilot Study.

Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF VASOPRESSORS FOR SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS.

Non-adrenergic vasopressors for vasodilatory shock or perioperative vasoplegia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Reduction of norepinephrine versus vasopressin in the stabilization phase of septic shock: RENOVA clinical trial.

Regulatory review: approved

Regulatory review: approved

What still needs investigation

Claim traceability

Anthony C Gordon

Martin W Dünser

Alessandro Belletti

Alexina J Mason

Deborah Ashby

Gavin D Perkins

Giovanni Landoni

Günter Luckner

Hanno Ulmer

Hans Knotzer

James A Russell

Keith R Walley

Follow the scientific relationships

Intensive care medicine