-
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Dec 2022To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
SOURCE
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched six databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We evaluated inotropes, vasopressors, and MCS in separate networks. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to rate the certainty in findings. The critical outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause mortality.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We included 17 RCTs. Among inotropes (seven RCTs, 1,145 patients), levosimendan probably reduces mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.87; moderate certainty), but primarily in lower severity shock. Milrinone (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.39; low certainty) and dobutamine (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49; low certainty) may have no effect on mortality compared with placebo. With regard to MCS (eight RCTs, 856 patients), there may be no effect on mortality with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; low certainty) or percutaneous MCS (pMCS) (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.98; low certainty), compared with a strategy involving no MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with less major bleeding compared with pMCS. We found only two RCTs evaluating vasopressors, yielding insufficient data for meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that levosimendan reduces mortality compared with placebo among patients with low severity cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pump and pMCS had no effect on mortality compared with a strategy of no MCS, but pMCS was associated with higher rates of major bleeding.
STUDY REGISTRATION
Center for Open Science ( https://osf.io/ky2gr ); registered 10 November 2020.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Shock, Cardiogenic; Network Meta-Analysis; Simendan; Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping; Myocardial Infarction; Hemorrhage; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36195825
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-022-02337-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Output, Low; Cardiotonic Agents; Cause of Death; Dobutamine; Enoximone; Humans; Hydrazones; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Nitric Oxide; Pyridazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Cardiogenic; Simendan; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 29376560
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009669.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) are potentially life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) are potentially life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery. While there is solid evidence for the treatment of other cardiovascular diseases of acute onset, treatment strategies in haemodynamic instability due to CS and LCOS remains less robustly supported by the given scientific literature. Therefore, we have analysed the current body of evidence for the treatment of CS or LCOS with inotropic and/or vasodilating agents. This is the second update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
Assessment of efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator agents in CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or after cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2019. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with AMI, HF or cardiac surgery complicated by CS or LCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 19 eligible studies including 2385 individuals (mean or median age range 56 to 73 years) and three ongoing studies. We categorised studies into 11 comparisons, all against standard cardiac care and additional other drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo; enoximone versus dobutamine, piroximone or epinephrine-nitroglycerine; epinephrine versus norepinephrine or norepinephrine-dobutamine; dopexamine versus dopamine; milrinone versus dobutamine and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine. All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analyses were done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Eighteen of 19 trials were small with only a few included participants. An acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements occurred in nine of 19 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which showed a high risk in more than 50% of included studies, encompassed performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events. All comparisons revealed uncertainty on the effect of inotropic/vasodilating drugs on all-cause mortality with a low to very low quality of evidence. In detail, the findings were: levosimendan versus dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.03; participants = 1701; low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.13; participants = 1591; low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus placebo (short-term mortality: no data available; long-term mortality: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.90; participants = 55; very low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus enoximone (short-term mortality: RR 0.50, 0.22 to 1.14; participants = 32; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; participants = 30; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); dopexamine versus dopamine (short-term mortality: no deaths in either intervention arm; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); enoximone versus dobutamine (short-term mortality RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; participants = 27; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine (short-term mortality: RR 1.81, 0.89 to 3.68; participants = 57; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.93; participants = 20; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available). No information regarding all-cause mortality were available for the comparisons milrinone versus dobutamine, enoximone versus piroximone and enoximone versus epinephrine-nitroglycerine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, there are no convincing data supporting any specific inotropic or vasodilating therapy to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or LCOS. Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care of cardiovascular patients and the available evidence. In light of the uncertainties in the field, partially due to the underlying methodological flaws in existing studies, future RCTs should be carefully designed to potentially overcome given limitations and ultimately define the role of inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in CS and LCOS.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Output, Low; Cardiotonic Agents; Cause of Death; Dobutamine; Enoximone; Epinephrine; Humans; Hydrazones; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Nitric Oxide; Placebos; Pyridazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Cardiogenic; Simendan; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 33152122
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009669.pub4 -
Shock (Augusta, Ga.) Dec 2023Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Current guidelines recommend the use of norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor, whereas adrenergic agonists and vasopressin analogs are also commonly used by physicians. To date, very few studies have synthetically compared the effects of multiple types of vasoactive medications. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the efficacy of vasoactive agents both individually and in combination to treat septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to May 12, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasopressors. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the ICU length of stay. Adverse events are defined as any undesirable outcomes, including myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, peripheral ischemia, or stroke and cerebrovascular events. Findings: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials comprising 4,966 patients and assessing 8 types of vasoactive treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve provided a ranking of vasoactive medications in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality from most effective to least effective: norepinephrine plus dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, norepinephrine, norepinephrine plus vasopressin, dopamine, and dobutamine. Dopamine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin, whereas other vasoactive medications showed no definite difference in ICU length of stay. Regarding adverse events, norepinephrine was associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Dopamine was associated with the highest incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epinephrine and terlipressin were associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Interpretation: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that norepinephrine plus dobutamine is associated with a lower risk of 28-day mortality in septic shock patients than other vasoactive medications, and the use of dopamine is associated with a higher risk of 28-day mortality due to septic shock than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Dopamine; Terlipressin; Dobutamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Epinephrine; Norepinephrine; Vasopressins; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Ischemia; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 37548686
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000002193 -
Critical Care Explorations Sep 2023Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39; = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference -1.85 d; 95% CI -3.62 to -0.09; = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.
CONCLUSIONS
Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 37649849
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962 -
Biomedicine Hub 2022Comparative studies among the various cardiovascular medications used for the treatment of neonatal hypotension are lacking.
BACKGROUND
Comparative studies among the various cardiovascular medications used for the treatment of neonatal hypotension are lacking.
METHODS
This systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of the anti-hypotensive treatments in preterm and term infants was conducted to evaluate efficacy and impact on outcome. Electronic databases were searched up to February 2021 for relevant articles. As an extension of the current approach for study selection, a machine learning technique was used. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of inotropes, pressors, volume therapy, and corticosteroids were included. Response to treatment was the primary outcome while secondary outcomes included mortality and common morbidities.
RESULTS
Nineteen RCTs involving 758 preterm and term neonates were found, and 8 treatments were evaluated. Most studies involved subjects with early hypotension associated with prematurity. Pairwise meta-analysis among treatments showed that dopamine was more effective than dobutamine regarding the response to treatment (restoration of normotension or normalization of blood pressure) (7 trials, 286 neonates, odds ratio, 3.06 [95% CI = 1.06-8.87]; = 49%, very low quality of the evidence per GRADE). Comparisons of other treatments were not significant. No differences were found among regimens regarding survival and other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis, only the comparison of dopamine versus dobutamine provided evidence for efficacy of treatment and favored dopamine. No safe conclusions could be reached in regard to other treatments. Data regarding the management of arterial hypotension in conditions other than transition after birth in preterm newborns are sparse both in preterm and term infants.
PubMed: 35950013
DOI: 10.1159/000525133 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2021Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-associated cardiovascular failure in ICU. Nevertheless, the role and mechanism of levosimendan in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-associated cardiovascular failure in ICU. Nevertheless, the role and mechanism of levosimendan in patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy remains unclear. Moreover, previous studies on whether levosimendan is superior to dobutamine are still controversial. More importantly, these studies did not take changes (before-after comparison to the baseline) in quantitative parameters such as ejection fraction into account with the baseline level. Here, we aimed to determine the pros and cons of the two medicines by assessing the changes in cardiac function and blood lactate, mortality, with the standardized mean difference used as a summary statistic. Relevant studies were obtained by a thorough and disciplined literature search in several notable academic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase until November 2020. Outcomes included changes in cardiac function, lactic acid, mortality and length of hospital stay. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, including 192 patients. Compared with dobutamine, patients treated with levosimendan had a greater improvement of cardiac index (ΔCI) (random effects, SMD = 0.90 [0.20,1.60]; I = 76%, P < 0.01) and left ventricular stroke work index (ΔLVSWI) (random effects, SMD = 1.56 [0.90,2.21]; I = 65%, P = 0.04), a significant decrease of blood lactate (Δblood lactate) (random effects, MD = - 0.79 [- 1.33, - 0.25]; I = 68%, P < 0.01) at 24-h after drug intervention, respectively. There was no significant difference between levosimendan and dobutamine on all-cause mortality in ICU (fixed effect, OR = 0.72 [0.39,1.33]; I = 0%, P = 0.99). We combine effect sizes related to different measurement parameters to evaluate cardiac function, which implied that septic patients with myocardial dysfunction might have a better improvement of cardiac function by levosimendan than dobutamine (random effects, SMD = 1.05 [0.69,1.41]; I = 67%, P < 0.01). This study suggested a significant improvement of CI, LVSWI, and decrease of blood lactate in septic patients with myocardial dysfunction in ICU after 24-h administration of levosimendan than dobutamine. However, the administration of levosimendan has neither an impact on mortality nor LVEF. Septic patients with myocardial dysfunction may partly benefit from levosimendan than dobutamine, mainly embodied in cardiac function improvement.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Dobutamine; Heart Diseases; Lactic Acid; Sepsis; Simendan; Stroke Volume; Survival Rate
PubMed: 34645892
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99716-9 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Apr 2023Scorpion envenomation is associated with several complications. One of the most serious complications is the cardiac involvement in the form of myocarditis that remains...
BACKGROUND
Scorpion envenomation is associated with several complications. One of the most serious complications is the cardiac involvement in the form of myocarditis that remains the main reason for mortalities associated with scorpion envenomation. The present review aims to elucidate clinical and paraclinical findings associated with scorpion-related myocarditis, and to explore different management strategies and subsequent outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles related to keywords of myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation up to May 1, 2022. Each article was carefully reviewed by two independent researchers. In case of disagreement for inclusion, we sought a third researcher opinion.
RESULTS
A total of 703 cases from 30 case reports and 34 case series were included in our review. Myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation was usually reported in children presenting with cardiopulmonary symptoms including pulmonary edema (60.7%) and shock or hypotension (45.8%). The most common ECG findings are sinus tachycardia (82%) followed by ST-T changes (64.6%). The management typically included inotropes (especially dobutamine), prazosin, diuretics, nitroglycerine and digoxin, when indicated. Mechanical ventilation was required in 36.7% of the patients. Mortality in confirmed scorpion-related myocarditis cases is estimated at 7.3%. Almost all survived cases showed rapid recovery and improvement in the left ventricular function.
CONCLUSION
Even though myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation is rare, it remains a serious and in some of cases a fatal consequence of scorpion sting. In case of relative presentations, particularly in envenomed children, diagnosis of myocarditis should be considered. Early screening using serial cardiac markers and echocardiography can guide the treatment. Prompt treatment that focuses on cardiogenic shock and pulmonary edema usually results in a favorable outcome.
Topics: Child; Humans; Animals; Scorpion Stings; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Edema; Dobutamine; Respiration, Artificial; Scorpions
PubMed: 37018229
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011219 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Dec 2015Inotropes and natriuretic peptides are essential components of current therapeutic options for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). This systematic review examines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dobutamine Therapy is Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes Compared with Nesiritide Therapy for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Inotropes and natriuretic peptides are essential components of current therapeutic options for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). This systematic review examines the therapeutic effectiveness of dobutamine and brain natriuretic peptide, nesiritide, in reducing mortality and readmission rates for ADHF treatment.
METHODS
Published studies related to dobutamine and nesiritide therapy in ADHF were identified via an exhaustive search of scientific literature databases. The identified studies, published between 2002 and 2012, were carefully screened based on our predefined inclusion criteria. Selected studies were pooled, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome were calculated. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the influence of ethnicity on the study outcome.
RESULTS
Seven cohort studies were selected for this meta-analysis. These seven studies included 959 ADHF patients who underwent nesiritide treatment and 1748 ADHF patients who received dobutamine therapy. Our meta-analysis revealed a significantly lower survival rate in dobutamine-treated patients compared with nesiritide-treated patients (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63, P < 0.001). Additionally, a markedly higher readmission rate was associated with dobutamine treatment compared with nesiritide treatment (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.73, P < 0.001). A stratified analysis based on ethnicity revealed a significantly lower survival in dobutamine-treated ADHF patients in Caucasian and mixed populations compared with nesiritide treatment (Caucasian: OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.94, P = 0.024; Mixed: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, P < 0.001). However, a similar association was not detected in Asian populations (P = 0.738). Further, dobutamine-treated ADHF patients displayed higher readmission rates than did nesiritide-treated patients in both Caucasian and mixed-race populations (all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that dobutamine therapy is associated with poorer outcomes, with higher in-hospital mortality rates and increased readmission rates compared with nesiritide therapy in ADHF patients. Thus, current treatment strategies need to be redesigned for better outcomes.
Topics: Acute Disease; Cardiotonic Agents; Cohort Studies; Dobutamine; Heart Failure; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Natriuretic Peptide, Brain; Patient Readmission; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 26123415
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-015-0134-3 -
Clinical and Investigative Medicine.... Jun 2019Patients in cardiac intensive care units (ICU) are admitted with increasingly higher disease acuity and a larger burden of non-cardiac critical illness. Accordingly,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Patients in cardiac intensive care units (ICU) are admitted with increasingly higher disease acuity and a larger burden of non-cardiac critical illness. Accordingly, positive inotropes are being used with increased frequency and little comparative data to support drug selection. We compared the effectiveness and safety of dobutamine and milrinone in low cardiac output states (LCOS) and/or cardiogenic shock (CS).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review comparing dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause mortality, length of stay in the ICU (LOS-ICU), length of stay in hospital (LOS-H) and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients with LCOS and/or CS.
RESULTS
We identified 11 studies that meet eligibility requirements and which were published between 2001 and 2016 and included 23,056 patients. Only one randomized clinical trial was identified, with the remaining studies comprising observational cohort studies. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, trended towards a benefit with milrinone but did not meet pre-specified significance (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.29, p=0.06). While LOS-ICU (mean difference -0.72, 95% CI -1.10- -0.34, p=0.0002) was shorter with dobutamine, there was no difference in LOS-H (mean difference -1.22, 95% CI -4.68 - 2.24, p=0.49). Significant arrhythmias, specifically symptomatic and/or requiring antiarrhythmic therapy, were no different between the groups (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.85-3.76, p=0.13).
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available data comparing milrinone to dobutamine in patients requiring inotropic support is limited. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter LOS in the ICU, with a worrisome signal of increased risk of allcause mortality. Randomized data are needed to guide inotrope selection in patients with LCOS and/or CS.
Topics: Cardiac Output, Low; Cardiotonic Agents; Dobutamine; Humans; Length of Stay; Milrinone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31228965
DOI: 10.25011/cim.v42i2.32813