Omar Abdel-Razek, Pietro Di Santo, Richard G Jung, Simon Parlow, Pouya Motazedian, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Sarah Visintini, Jeffrey A Marbach, F Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard, Marino Labinaz, Rebecca Mathew, Benjamin Hibbert
{"title":"米力农和多巴酚丁胺治疗心源性休克的疗效:最新的系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Omar Abdel-Razek, Pietro Di Santo, Richard G Jung, Simon Parlow, Pouya Motazedian, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Sarah Visintini, Jeffrey A Marbach, F Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard, Marino Labinaz, Rebecca Mathew, Benjamin Hibbert","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>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; <i>p</i> = 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; <i>p</i> = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0962"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/64/cc9-5-e0962.PMC10465094.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Milrinone and Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Omar Abdel-Razek, Pietro Di Santo, Richard G Jung, Simon Parlow, Pouya Motazedian, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Sarah Visintini, Jeffrey A Marbach, F Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard, Marino Labinaz, Rebecca Mathew, Benjamin Hibbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>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; <i>p</i> = 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; <i>p</i> = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 9\",\"pages\":\"e0962\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/64/cc9-5-e0962.PMC10465094.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:肌力支持常用于心源性休克(CS)患者。指导在该患者群体中使用多巴酚丁胺或米力酮的高质量数据有限。我们比较了这两种肌力药物在低心输出量状态(LCOS)或CS患者中的疗效和安全性。数据来源:MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials检索截止到2023年2月1日,使用与LCOS或CS和肌力相关的关键术语和索引标题。资料提取:两名独立评论者纳入了比较多巴酚丁胺与米力酮在住院患者全因死亡率、ICU住院时间、住院时间和显著心律失常方面的研究。数据综合:荟萃分析共纳入11项研究,21,084例患者。仅确定了两项随机对照试验。主要结局,全因死亡率,仅在观察性研究中有利于米力农(优势比[OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39;P = 0.02)。仅在观察性研究中,多巴酚丁胺可降低住院时间(LOS)(平均差-1.85 d;95% CI为-3.62 ~ -0.09;P = 0.04)。在重症监护病房的LOS中,显著性心律失常的发生率没有差异。结论:只有有限的数据支持一种肌力药物的使用优于另一种。多巴酚丁胺可能与较短的医院LOS有关;然而,也有可能增加全因死亡率。需要更大规模的随机研究来证实这些结果的差异。
Efficacy of Milrinone and Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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; p = 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; p = 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.