Original Article
Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in the Treatment of Shock
N Engl J Med 2010; 362:779-789March 4, 2010
- Abstract
Background
Both dopamine and norepinephrine are recommended as first-line vasopressor agents in the treatment of shock. There is a continuing controversy about whether one agent is superior to the other.
Methods
In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with shock to receive either dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy to restore and maintain blood pressure. When blood pressure could not be maintained with a dose of 20 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute for dopamine or a dose of 0.19 μg per kilogram per minute for norepinephrine, open-label norepinephrine, epinephrine, or vasopressin could be added. The primary outcome was the rate of death at 28 days after randomization; secondary end points included the number of days without need for organ support and the occurrence of adverse events.
Results
The trial included 1679 patients, of whom 858 were assigned to dopamine and 821 to norepinephrine. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death at 28 days (52.5% in the dopamine group and 48.5% in the norepinephrine group; odds ratio with dopamine, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.42; P=0.10). However, there were more arrhythmic events among the patients treated with dopamine than among those treated with norepinephrine (207 events [24.1%] vs. 102 events [12.4%], P<0.001). A subgroup analysis showed that dopamine, as compared with norepinephrine, was associated with an increased rate of death at 28 days among the 280 patients with cardiogenic shock but not among the 1044 patients with septic shock or the 263 with hypovolemic shock (P=0.03 for cardiogenic shock, P=0.19 for septic shock, and P=0.84 for hypovolemic shock, in Kaplan–Meier analyses).
Conclusions
Although there was no significant difference in the rate of death between patients with shock who were treated with dopamine as the first-line vasopressor agent and those who were treated with norepinephrine, the use of dopamine was associated with a greater number of adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314704.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Screening and Enrollment.Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier Curves for 28-Day Survival in the Intention-to-Treat Population.Article Activity
- Article
Circulatory shock is a life-threatening condition that is associated with high mortality.1,2 The administration of fluids, which is the first-line therapeutic strategy, is often insufficient to stabilize the patient's condition, and adrenergic agents are frequently required to correct hypotension. Among these agents, dopamine and norepinephrine are used most frequently.3 Both of these agents influence alpha-adrenergic and beta-adrenergic receptors, but to different degrees. Alpha-adrenergic effects increase vascular tone but may decrease cardiac output and regional blood flow, especially in cutaneous, splanchnic, and renal beds. Beta-adrenergic effects help to maintain blood flow through inotropic and chronotropic effects and to increase splanchnic perfusion. This beta-adrenergic stimulation can have unwanted consequences as well, including increased cellular metabolism and immunosuppressive effects. Dopamine also stimulates dopaminergic receptors, resulting in a proportionately greater increase in splanchnic and renal perfusion, and it may facilitate resolution of lung edema.4 However, dopaminergic stimulation can have harmful immunologic effects by altering hypothalamo–pituitary function, resulting in a marked decrease in prolactin and growth hormone levels. 5
Thus, dopamine and norepinephrine may have different effects on the kidney, the splanchnic region, and the pituitary axis, but the clinical implications of these differences are still uncertain. Consensus guidelines and expert recommendations suggest that either agent may be used as a first-choice vasopressor in patients with shock.6-8 However, observational studies have shown that the administration of dopamine may be associated with rates of death that are higher than those associated with the administration of norepinephrine.3,9,10 The Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) study,3 which involved 1058 patients who were in shock, showed that administration of dopamine was an independent risk factor for death in the intensive care unit (ICU). In a meta-analysis,11 only three randomized studies, with a total of just 62 patients, were identified that compared the effects of dopamine and norepinephrine in patients with septic shock. The lack of data from clinical trials in the face of growing observational evidence that norepinephrine may be associated with better outcomes called for a randomized, controlled trial. Our study was designed to evaluate whether the choice of norepinephrine over dopamine as the first-line vasopressor agent could reduce the rate of death among patients in shock.
Methods
Study Patients
We conducted this multicenter trial between December 19, 2003, and October 6, 2007, in eight centers in Belgium, Austria, and Spain. All patients 18 years of age or older in whom a vasopressor agent was required for the treatment of shock were included in the study. The patient was considered to be in shock if the mean arterial pressure was less than 70 mm Hg or the systolic blood pressure was less than 100 mm Hg despite the fact that an adequate amount of fluids (at least 1000 ml of crystalloids or 500 ml of colloids) had been administered (unless there was an elevation in the central venous pressure to >12 mm Hg or in pulmonary-artery occlusion pressure to >14 mm Hg) and if there were signs of tissue hypoperfusion (e.g., altered mental state, mottled skin, urine output of <0.5 ml per kilogram of body weight for 1 hour, or a serum lactate level of >2 mmol per liter). Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age; had already received a vasopressor agent (dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, or phenylephrine) for more than 4 hours during the current episode of shock; had a serious arrhythmia, such as rapid atrial fibrillation (>160 beats per minute) or ventricular tachycardia; or had been declared brain-dead.
Protocol
Randomization was performed in computer-generated, permuted blocks of 6 to 10, stratified according to the participating ICU. Treatment assignments and a five-digit reference number were placed in sealed, opaque envelopes, which were opened by the person responsible for the preparation of the trial-drug solutions. The solutions of norepinephrine or dopamine were prepared in vials or syringes according to the preference of the local ICU. Each vial or syringe was then labeled with its randomly allocated number. The doctors and nurses administering the drugs, as well as the local investigators and research personnel who collected data, were unaware of the treatment assignments. The trial was approved by the ethics committee at each participating center. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or next of kin.
The dose was determined according to the patient's body weight. Doses of dopamine could be increased or decreased by 2 μg per kilogram per minute and doses of norepinephrine by 0.02 μg per kilogram per minute (or more in emergency cases) (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). An example of the dose-escalation table is provided in Table 1 in the Supplementary Appendix. The target blood pressure was determined by the doctor in charge for each individual patient. If the patient was still hypotensive after the maximum dose of either agent had been administered (20 μg per kilogram per minute for dopamine or 0.19 μg per kilogram per minute for norepinephrine — doses that have been shown to have similar effects on mean arterial blood pressure12,13), open-label norepinephrine was added. The dose of 20 μg per kilogram per minute for dopamine was selected as the maximal dose because this upper limit was the standard of care in the participating ICUs, in line with expert recommendations14 and international guidelines.15
If the patient was already being treated with a vasopressor at baseline, that agent was replaced as soon as possible with the trial-drug solution. If the patient was already receiving dopamine and this agent could not be discontinued after introduction of the trial-drug solution, the dopamine was replaced with an open-label norepinephrine infusion. Open-label dopamine was not allowed at any time. Epinephrine and vasopressin were used only as rescue therapy. Inotropic agents could be used, if needed, to increase cardiac output.
When the patients were weaned from vasopressor agents, any open-label norepinephrine that was being administered was withdrawn first, after which the trial-drug solution was withdrawn. If hypotension recurred, the trial-drug solution was resumed first (at the same maximal dose) and an open-label solution of norepinephrine was added if needed.
The study period lasted a maximum of 28 days. The study drug was reinstituted, if necessary, in patients who were discharged from the ICU but were readmitted within 28 days after randomization, allowing maximal exposure to the study drug. After day 28, the choice of vasopressor agent was left to the discretion of the physician in charge.
If adverse events occurred during treatment with the study drug, the physician in charge could withdraw the patient from the study and switch him or her to open-label vasopressor therapy. All other treatment decisions were left to the discretion of the attending physicians.
End Points
The primary end point of the trial was the rate of death at 28 days. Secondary end points were the rates of death in the ICU, in the hospital, at 6 months, and at 12 months; the duration of stay in the ICU; the number of days without need for organ support (i.e., vasopressors, ventilators, or renal-replacement therapy); the time to attainment of hemodynamic stability (i.e., time to reach a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg)16; the changes in hemodynamic variables; and the use of dobutamine or other inotropic agents. Adverse events were categorized as arrhythmias (i.e., ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or atrial fibrillation), myocardial necrosis, skin necrosis, ischemia in limbs or distal extremities, or secondary infections.17
Measured Variables
The following data were recorded every 6 hours for 48 hours, every 8 hours on days 3, 4, and 5, and once a day on days 6, 7, 14, 21, and 28: vital signs, hemodynamic variables (including systolic and diastolic arterial pressures, heart rate, central venous pressure, and, when possible, pulmonary-artery pressures), cardiac output, arterial and mixed-venous (or central venous) blood gas levels, doses of vasoactive agents, and respiratory conditions. Biologic variables, data on daily fluid balance, microbiologic data, and antibiotic therapy were recorded daily for the first 7 days and then on days 14, 21, and 28.
The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score18 was calculated at the time of admission to the ICU and at the time of enrollment in the study, and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score19 was calculated daily for the first 7 days and then on days 14, 21, and 28.
Statistical Analysis
On the basis of the results of the SOAP study,3 which showed a rate of death of 43% among patients receiving dopamine and a rate of 36% among patients receiving norepinephrine, we estimated that with 765 patients in each group, the study would have 80% power to show a 15% relative difference in the rate of death at 28 days, at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.
Since the magnitude of the effect derived from observational studies can be misleading, we opted for a sequential trial design with two-sided alternatives20; the trial design called for analyses to be performed after inclusion of the first 50 and 100 patients, and then after inclusion of each additional 100 patients, and allowed for the discontinuation of the trial according to the following predefined boundaries: superiority of norepinephrine over dopamine, superiority of dopamine over norepinephrine, or no difference between the two. An independent statistician who is also a physician monitored the efficacy analyses and the adverse events; on October 6, 2007, after analysis of the outcome in the first 1600 patients showed that one of the three predefined boundaries had been crossed, the statistician advised that the trial be stopped.
All data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Differences in the primary outcome were analyzed with the use of an unadjusted chi-square test. Results are presented as absolute and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Kaplan–Meier curves for estimated survival were compared with the use of a log-rank test. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to evaluate the influence of potential confounding factors on the outcome (factors were selected if the P value in the univariate analysis was <0.20).
A predefined subgroup analysis of the primary outcome was conducted according to the type of shock (septic, cardiogenic, or hypovolemic). A test for interaction was performed, and the results are presented in a forest plot.
Other binary end points were analyzed with the use of chi-square tests, and continuous variables were compared by means of an unpaired Student's t-test or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as appropriate, with the use of SPSS software, version 13.0 (SPSS). All reported P values are two-sided and have not been adjusted for multiple testing. The study statistician and investigators remained unaware of the patients' treatment assignments while they performed the final analyses.
Results
Patients
A total of 1679 patients were enrolled — 858 in the dopamine group and 821 in the norepinephrine group (Figure 1Figure 1
Screening and Enrollment.). All patients were followed to day 28; data on the outcome during the stay in the hospital were available for 1656 patients (98.6%), data on the 6-month outcome for 1443 patients (85.9%), and data on the 12-month outcome for 1036 patients (61.7%). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to most of the baseline characteristics (Table 1Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the Patients and Major Therapeutic Interventions at Baseline.); there were small differences, which were of questionable clinical relevance, in the heart rate, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), and ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2). The type of shock that was seen most frequently was septic shock (in 1044 patients [62.2%]), followed by cardiogenic shock (in 280 patients [16.7%]) and hypovolemic shock (in 263 patients [15.7%]). The sources of sepsis are detailed in Table 2 in the Supplementary Appendix. Hydrocortisone was administered in 344 patients who received dopamine (40.1%) and in 326 patients who received norepinephrine (39.7%). Among patients with septic shock, recombinant activated human protein C was administered in 102 patients in the dopamine group (18.8%) and 96 patients in the norepinephrine group (19.1%).Data on hemodynamic variables and doses of vasoactive agents are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 in the Supplementary Appendix. The mean arterial pressure was similar in the two treatment groups at baseline, and it changed similarly over time, although it was slightly higher from 12 to 24 hours in the norepinephrine group. The doses of the study drug were similar in the two groups at all times. More patients in the dopamine group than in the norepinephrine group required open-label norepinephrine therapy at some point (26% vs. 20%, P<0.001), but the doses of open-label norepinephrine that were administered were similar in the two groups. The use of open-label epinephrine at any time was similar in the two groups (administered in 3.5% of patients in the dopamine group and in 2.3% of those in the norepinephrine group, P=0.10), as was the use of vasopressin (0.2% in both groups, P=0.67). Dobutamine was used more frequently in patients treated with norepinephrine, but 12 hours after randomization, the doses of dobutamine were significantly higher in patients treated with dopamine. The mean (±SD) time to the achievement of a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg was similar in the two groups (6.3±5.6 hours in the dopamine group and 6.0±4.9 hours in the norepinephrine group, P=0.35). There were no major between-group differences in the total amounts of fluid given, although patients in the dopamine group received more fluids on day 1 than did patients in the norepinephrine group. Urine output was significantly higher during the first 24 hours after randomization among patients in the dopamine group than among those in the norepinephrine group, but this difference eventually disappeared, so that the fluid balance was quite similar between the two groups.
The increase in heart rate was greater in patients treated with dopamine than in patients treated with norepinephrine, up to 36 hours after randomization; the changes in the cardiac index, central venous pressure, venous oxygen saturation, and lactate levels were similar in the two groups.
Outcome
The boundary for stopping the trial owing to the lack of evidence of a difference between treatments at a P value of 0.05 was crossed (Figure 5 in the Supplementary Appendix). There were no significant differences between the groups in the rate of death at 28 days or in the rates of death in the ICU, in the hospital, at 6 months, or at 12 months (Table 2Table 2
Mortality Rates.). Kaplan–Meier curves for estimated survival showed no significant differences in the outcome (Figure 2Figure 2Kaplan–Meier Curves for 28-Day Survival in the Intention-to-Treat Population.). Cox proportional-hazards analyses that included the APACHE II score, sex, and other relevant variables yielded similar results (Figure 6 in the Supplementary Appendix). There were more days without need for the trial drug and more days without need for open-label vasopressors in the norepinephrine group than in the dopamine group, but there were no significant differences between the groups in the number of days without need for ICU care and in the number of days without need for organ support (Table 3Table 3
Secondary Outcomes and Adverse Events.). There were no significant differences in the causes of death between the two groups, although death from refractory shock occurred more frequently in the group of patients treated with dopamine than in the group treated with norepinephrine (P=0.05).Adverse Events
Overall, 309 patients (18.4%) had an arrhythmia; the most common type of arrhythmia was atrial fibrillation, which occurred in 266 patients (86.1%). More patients had an arrhythmia, especially atrial fibrillation, in the dopamine group than in the norepinephrine group (Table 3). The study drug was discontinued in 65 patients owing to severe arrhythmias — 52 patients (6.1%) in the dopamine group and 13 patients (1.6%) in the norepinephrine group (P<0.001). These patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidences of other adverse events.
Additional Analyses
A predefined subgroup analysis was conducted according to the type of shock — septic shock, which occurred in 1044 patients (542 in the dopamine group and 502 in the norepinephrine group); cardiogenic shock, which occurred in 280 patients (135 in the dopamine group and 145 in the norepinephrine group); or hypovolemic shock, which occurred in 263 patients (138 in the dopamine group and 125 in the norepinephrine group). The overall effect of treatment did not differ significantly among these subgroups (P=0.87 for interaction), although the rate of death at 28 days was significantly higher among patients with cardiogenic shock who were treated with dopamine than among those with cardiogenic shock who were treated with norepinephrine (P=0.03) (Figure 3Figure 3
Forest Plot for Predefined Subgroup Analysis According to Type of Shock.). The Kaplan–Meier curves for the subgroup analysis according to type of shock are shown in Figure 7 in the Supplementary Appendix.Discussion
In this multicenter, randomized, blinded trial comparing dopamine and norepinephrine as the initial vasopressor therapy in the treatment of shock, there was no significant difference in the rate of death at 28 days between patients who received dopamine and those who received norepinephrine. Dopamine was associated with more arrhythmic events than was norepinephrine, and arrhythmic events that were severe enough to require withdrawal from the study were more frequent in the dopamine group. In addition, dopamine was associated with a significant increase in the rate of death in the predefined subgroup of patients with cardiogenic shock.
The rate of death at 28 days in this study was close to 50%, which is to be expected in a study with very few exclusion criteria and is similar to the rate in previous observational studies.3,9,21-24 Our trial was a pragmatic study that included all patients who were treated for shock states, and therefore, it has high external validity. The study design allowed for maximal exposure to the study drug, since we included patients who had received open-label vasopressors for a maximum of 4 hours before randomization and since during the 28-day study period, the study drug was withdrawn last when patients were weaned from vasopressor therapies and was resumed first if resumption of vasopressor therapy was necessary.
Smaller observational studies have suggested that treatment with dopamine may be detrimental to patients with septic shock.3,9,10 However, Póvoa et al. reported a lower rate of death among patients treated with dopamine than among those treated with norepinephrine.25 In our study, which included more than 1000 patients with septic shock, there was no significant difference in the outcome between patients treated with dopamine and those treated with norepinephrine.
Among patients with cardiogenic shock, the rate of death was significantly higher in the group treated with dopamine than in the group treated with norepinephrine, although one might expect that cardiac output would be better maintained with dopamine26-28 than with norepinephrine. The exact cause of the increased mortality cannot be determined, but the early difference in the rate of death suggests that the higher heart rate with dopamine may have contributed to the occurrence of ischemic events. Whatever the mechanism may be, these data strongly challenge the current American College of Cardiology–American Heart Association guidelines, which recommend dopamine as the first-choice agent to increase arterial pressure among patients who have hypotension as a result of an acute myocardial infarction.7
This study has several limitations. First, dopamine is a less potent vasopressor than norepinephrine; however, we used infusion rates that were roughly equipotent with respect to systemic arterial pressure, and there were only minor differences in the use of open-label norepinephrine, most of which were related to early termination of the study drug and a shift to open-label norepinephrine because of the occurrence of arrhythmias that were difficult to control. Doses of open-label norepinephrine and the use of open-label epinephrine and vasopressin were similar between the two groups. Second, we used a sequential design, which potentially allowed us to stop the study early if an effect larger than that expected from observational trials occurred; however, the trial was eventually stopped after inclusion of more patients than we had expected to be included on the basis of our estimates of the sample size. Accordingly, all conclusions related to the primary outcome reached the predefined power.
In summary, although the rate of death did not differ significantly between the group of patients treated with dopamine and the group treated with norepinephrine, this study raises serious concerns about the safety of dopamine therapy, since dopamine, as compared with norepinephrine, was associated with more arrhythmias and with an increased rate of death in the subgroup of patients with cardiogenic shock.
Supported in part by the European Society of Intensive Care through support from the European Critical Care Research Network.
Dr. Aldecoa reports receiving consulting fees from Covidien.
No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Source Information
From the Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital (D.D.B., A.B., J.-L.V.); the Department of Intensive Care, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (J.D., P.G.); and the Department of Intensive Care, Centre Hospitalier Etterbeek Ixelles (D.C.) — all in Brussels; the Department of Intensive Care, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium (P.B., P.D.); the Department of Medicine III, Intensive Care Unit 13H1, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna (C.M.); and the Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Rio Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain (C.A.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. De Backer at the Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Rte. de Lennik 808, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium, or at ddebacke@ulb.ac.be.
Members of the Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients II (SOAP II) trial group are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
Other investigators and participants in the trial are as follows: R. Kitzberger, U. Holzinger, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna; A. Roman, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire St. Pierre; D. De Bels, Brugmann University Hospital; S. Anane, Europe Hospitals St. Elisabeth, and S. Brimioulle, M. Van Nuffelen, Erasme University Hospital — all in Brussels; M. VanCutsem, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; J. Rico, J.I. Gomez Herreras, Rio Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain; H. Njimi (trial statistician), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels; and C. Mélot (independent statistician and physician responsible for conducting sequential analysis and evaluation of serious adverse effects), Erasme University Hospital, Brussels.
- References
References
1
Varpula M ,Tallgren M ,Saukkonen K ,Voipio-Pulkki LM ,Pettila V . Hemodynamic variables related to outcome in septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:1066-1071
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Marchick MR ,Kline JA ,Jones AE . The significance of non-sustained hypotension in emergency department patients with sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2009;35:1261-1264
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Sakr Y ,Reinhart K ,Vincent JL , et al. Does dopamine administration in shock influence outcome? Results of the Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) Study. Crit Care Med 2006;34:589-597
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Bertorello AM ,Sznajder JI . The dopamine paradox in lung and kidney epithelia: sharing the same target but operating different signaling networks. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2005;33:432-437
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Van den Berghe G ,de Zegher F . Anterior pituitary function during critical illness and dopamine treatment. Crit Care Med 1996;24:1580-1590
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Task Force of the American College of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Critical Care Medicine
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Antman EM ,Anbe DT ,Armstrong PW , et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 2004;110:e82-e292[Erratum, Circulation 2005;111:2013-4, 2007;115(15):e411.]
CrossRef | Medline8
Dellinger RP ,Levy MM ,Carlet JM , et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:17-60
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Martin C ,Viviand X ,Leone M ,Thirion X . Effect of norepinephrine on the outcome of septic shock. Crit Care Med 2000;28:2758-2765
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Boulain T ,Runge I ,Bercault N ,Benzekri-Lefevre D ,Wolf M ,Fleury C . Dopamine therapy in septic shock: detrimental effect on survival? J Crit Care 2009;24:575-582
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Mullner M ,Urbanek B ,Havel C ,Losert H ,Waechter F ,Gamper G . Vasopressors for shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;3:CD003709-CD003709
Medline12
Marik PE ,Mohedin M . The contrasting effects of dopamine and norepinephrine on systemic and splanchnic oxygen utilization in hyperdynamic sepsis. JAMA 1994;272:1354-1357
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
De Backer D ,Creteur J ,Silva E ,Vincent JL . Effects of dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine on the splanchnic circulation in septic shock: which is best? Crit Care Med 2003;31:1659-1667
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Wheeler AP ,Bernard GR . Treating patients with severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 1999;340:207-214
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline15
Beale RJ ,Hollenberg SM ,Vincent JL ,Parrillo JE . Vasopressor and inotropic support in septic shock: an evidence-based review. Crit Care Med 2004;32:Suppl:S455-S465
CrossRef | Medline16
Annane D ,Vignon P ,Renault A , et al. Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;370:676-684
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Garner JS ,Jarvis WR ,Emori TG ,Horan TC ,Hughes JM . CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128-140
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Knaus WA ,Draper EA ,Wagner DP ,Zimmerman JE . APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818-829
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Vincent JL ,Moreno R ,Takala J , et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med 1996;22:707-710
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Whitehead J. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials, rev. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 2000.
21
Levy B ,Dusang B ,Annane D ,Gibot S ,Bollaert PE . Cardiovascular response to dopamine and early prediction of outcome: a prospective multiple-center study. Crit Care Med 2005;33:2172-2177
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Blanco J ,Muriel-Bombin A ,Sagredo V , et al. Incidence, organ dysfunction and mortality in severe sepsis: a Spanish multicentre study. Crit Care 2008;12:R158-R158
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Annane D ,Aegerter P ,Jars-Guincestre MC ,Guidet B . Current epidemiology of septic shock: the CUB-Réa Network. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:165-172
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Annane D ,Sebille V ,Charpentier C , et al. Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock. JAMA 2002;288:862-871
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Povoa PR ,Carneiro AH ,Ribeiro OS ,Pereira AC . Influence of vasopressor agent in septic shock mortality: results from the Portuguese Community-Acquired Sepsis Study (SACiUCI study). Crit Care Med 2009;37:410-416
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Loeb HS ,Winslow EB ,Rahimtoola SH ,Rosen KM ,Gunnar RM . Acute hemodynamic effects of dopamine in patients with shock. Circulation 1971;44:163-173
Web of Science | Medline27
Winslow EJ ,Loeb HS ,Rahimtoola SH ,Kamath S ,Gunnar RM . Hemodynamic studies and results of therapy in 50 patients with bacteremic shock. Am J Med 1973;54:421-432
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Ungar A ,Fumagalli S ,Marini M , et al. Renal, but not systemic, hemodynamic effects of dopamine are influenced by the severity of congestive heart failure. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1125-1129
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (74)
Citing Articles
1
Jeff P. Kerrie, Sean M. Bagshaw, Peter G. Brindley. (2012) Early versus late parenteral nutrition in the adult ICU: feeding the patient or our conscience?. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
CrossRef2
Daniel Boutsikaris, Michael E. Winters. (2012) Postresuscitation Care. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 30:1, 123-140
CrossRef3
Fuat H. Saner, Vito R. Cicinnati, Georgios Sotiropoulos, Susanne Beckebaum. (2012) Strategies to prevent or reduce acute and chronic kidney injury in liver transplantation. Liver International 32:2, 179-188
CrossRef4
Kevin W. McConnell, Craig M. Coopersmith. (2012) Organ Failure Avoidance and Mitigation Strategies in Surgery. Surgical Clinics of North America
CrossRef5
Marco Tubaro, Nicolas Danchin, Patrick Goldstein, Gerasimos Filippatos, Yonathan Hasin, Magda Heras, Petr Jansky, Tone M. Norekval, Eva Swahn, Kristian Thygesen, Christiaan Vrints, Doron Zahger, Hans R. Arntz, Abdelouahab Bellou, Jean E. De La Coussaye, Leonardo De Luca, Kurt Huber, Yves Lambert, Maddalena Lettino, Bertil Lindahl, Scott Mclean, Lutz Nibbe, William F. Peacock, Susanna Price, Tom Quinn, Christian Spaulding, Gabriel Tatu-Chitoiu, Frans Van De Werf. (2012) Tratamiento prehospitalario de los pacientes con IAMCEST. Una declaración científica del Working Group Acute Cardiac Care de la European Society of Cardiology. Revista Española de Cardiología 65:1, 60-70
CrossRef6
Pere Ginès, Javier Fernández, François Durand, Faouzi Saliba. (2012) Management of critically-ill cirrhotic patients. Journal of Hepatology 56, S13-S24
CrossRef7
Javier Fernández, Thierry Gustot. (2012) Management of bacterial infections in cirrhosis. Journal of Hepatology 56, S1-S12
CrossRef8
D. Chakroborty, C. Sarkar, H. Yu, J. Wang, Z. Liu, P. S. Dasgupta, S. Basu. (2011) Dopamine stabilizes tumor blood vessels by up-regulating angiopoietin 1 expression in pericytes and Kruppel-like factor-2 expression in tumor endothelial cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:51, 20730-20735
CrossRef9
Stephen Westaby, Rajesh Kharbanda, Adrian P. Banning. (2011) Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 1: prediction, presentation and medical therapy. Nature Reviews Cardiology
CrossRef10
Yoshiaki Terao, Taiga Ichinomiya, Ushio Higashijima, Tomomi Tanise, Kosuke Miura, Makoto Fukusaki, Koji Sumikawa. (2011) Comparison between propofol and dexmedetomidine in postoperative sedation after extensive cervical spine surgery. Journal of Anesthesia
CrossRef11
E. Franco, I.J. Núñez-Gil, D. Vivas, B. Ruiz Mateos, B. Ibañez, N. Gonzalo, C. Macaya, A. Fernández Ortiz. (2011) Heart failure and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A review for a widespread situation. European Journal of Internal Medicine 22:6, 533-540
CrossRef12
Fabio Silvio Taccone, Katia Donadello, Sabino Scolletta. (2011) The relevance of severity scores in predicting outcome after cardiac arrest. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 11:6, 667-671
CrossRef13
Jean-Louis Vincent, Daniel De Backer. (2011) ICU nephrology: the implications of cardiovascular alterations in the acutely ill. Kidney International
CrossRef14
D. Micheloud Giménez, J.M. de Miguel Yanes, M. Fernández Cardona, A.I. Castuera Gil. (2011) Protocolo diagnóstico y tratamiento del paciente en shock en Urgencias. Medicine - Programa de Formación Médica Continuada Acreditado 10:90, 6137-6142
CrossRef15
Ritesh Maharaj. (2011) Vasopressors and the search for the optimal trial design. Contemporary Clinical Trials 32:6, 924-930
CrossRef16
M. Dougherty, S. T. Webb. (2011) Do inotropes really have a future?. Anaesthesia 66:11, 972-976
CrossRef17
Alastair G. Proudfoot, Danny F. McAuley, Matthew Hind, Mark J.D. Griffiths. (2011) Translational research. Current Opinion in Critical Care 17:5, 495-503
CrossRef18
Francois Lamontagne, Deborah J. Cook, Neill K.J. Adhikari, Matthias Briel, Mark Duffett, Michelle E. Kho, Karen E.A. Burns, Gordon Guyatt, Alexis F. Turgeon, Qi Zhou, Maureen O. Meade. (2011) Vasopressor administration and sepsis: A survey of Canadian intensivists. Journal of Critical Care 26:5, 532.e1-532.e7
CrossRef19
Jason Chua, Johanna Schwarzenberger, Aman Mahajan. (2011) Optimization of Pacing After Cardiopulmonary Bypass. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
CrossRef20
Alexandra Chronopoulos, Mitchell H. Rosner, Dinna N. Cruz, Claudio Ronco. (2011) Kidney injury: the case of elderly patients. La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio - Italian Journal of Laboratory Medicine 7:3, 170-183
CrossRef21
Nadia Khoury, Janet B. McGill. (2011) Reduction in insulin sensitivity following administration of the clinically used low-dose pressor, norepinephrine. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 27:6, 604-608
CrossRef22
Dianne L. Atkins, Stuart Berger. (2011) Improving Outcomes from Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Young Children and Adolescents. Pediatric Cardiology
CrossRef23
Piotr Paluszkiewicz, Ewa Mayzner-Zawadzka, Włodzimierz Baranowski, Grzegorz H. Bręborowicz, Maciej Brzeziński, Grażyna Durek, Adam Dziki, Maria M. Czupryńska, Małgorzata Lipińska-Gediga, Magdalena Łętowska, Andrzej Mital, Elżbieta Nowacka, Magdalena Pychyńska-Pokorska, Jerzy Ratajczak, Jan Rogowski, Zbigniew Rybicki, Sławomir Sobieszczyk, Radzisław Trzciński, Marta Wawrzynowicz-Syczewska, Jerzy Windyga, Maria Wujtewicz. (2011) Recommendations for the Management of Trauma or Surgery-Related Massive Blood Loss. Polish Journal of Surgery 83:8, 465-476
CrossRef24
Cristina Fante, Anat Eldar-Boock, Ronit Satchi-Fainaro, Helen M. I. Osborn, Francesca Greco. (2011) Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of a Polyglutamic Acid–Dopamine Conjugate: A New Antiangiogenic Agent. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 54:14, 5255-5259
CrossRef25
Krista L. Turner, Laura J. Moore, S. Rob Todd, Joseph F. Sucher, Stephen A. Jones, Bruce A. McKinley, Alicia Valdivia, R. Matthew Sailors, Frederick A. Moore. (2011) Identification of Cardiac Dysfunction in Sepsis with B-Type Natriuretic Peptide. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 213:1, 139-146
CrossRef26
Jean-Louis Vincent, Elena Carrasco Serrano, Aikaterina Dimoula. (2011) Current management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 9:7, 847-856
CrossRef27
Palle Toft, Else Tønnesen. (2011) Immune-modulating interventions in critically ill septic patients: pharmacological options. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 4:4, 491-501
CrossRef28
M. Tubaro, N. Danchin, P. Goldstein, G. Filippatos, Y. Hasin, M. Heras, P. Jansky, T. M. Norekval, E. Swahn, K. Thygesen, C. Vrints, D. Zahger, H. R. Arntz, A. Bellou, J. E. de La Coussaye, L. de Luca, K. Huber, Y. Lambert, M. Lettino, B. Lindahl, S. McLean, L. Nibbe, W. F. Peacock, S. Price, T. Quinn, C. Spaulding, G. Tatu-Chitoiu, F. van de Werf. (2011) Pre-hospital treatment of STEMI patients. A scientific statement of the Working Group Acute Cardiac Care of the European Society of Cardiology. Acute Cardiac Care 13:2, 56-67
CrossRef29
Christof Havel, Jasmin Arrich, Heidrun Losert, Gunnar Gamper, Marcus Müllner, Harald Herkner, Harald Herkner. 2011. Vasopressors for hypotensive shock. .
CrossRef30
A. Loza Vázquez, C. León Gil, A. León Regidor. (2011) Nuevas alternativas terapéuticas para la sepsis grave en el paciente crítico. Revisión. Medicina Intensiva 35:4, 236-245
CrossRef31
A. Geppert. (2011) Therapie des nichtinfarktbedingten kardiogenen Schocks. Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin 48:4, 259-263
CrossRef32
(2011) Deutsch-österreichische S3-Leitlinie „Infarktbedingter kardiogener Schock – Diagnose, Monitoring und Therapie“. Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin 48:4, 291-344
CrossRef33
Zhen CHEN, Jing LIU, Fei WANG, Xue GUAN, Jin-bao LI, Xiao-ming DENG. (2011) Norepinephrine alleviates renal injury after resuscitation in a rat model of uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock. Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University 31:3, 282-285
CrossRef34
S. CARLSEN, A. PERNER, . (2011) Initial fluid resuscitation of patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 55:4, 394-400
CrossRef35
Timothy E. Bunchman. (2011) Acute kidney injury treatment and the optimization of diuretics in newborns*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 12:2, 234-235
CrossRef36
Lisa Krenn, Georg Delle Karth. (2011) Essential lessons in cardiogenic shock: Epinephrine versus norepinephrine/dobutamine*. Critical Care Medicine 39:3, 583-584
CrossRef37
Bruno Levy, Pierre Perez, Jessica Perny, Carine Thivilier, Alain Gerard. (2011) Comparison of norepinephrine-dobutamine to epinephrine for hemodynamics, lactate metabolism, and organ function variables in cardiogenic shock. A prospective, randomized pilot study*. Critical Care Medicine 39:3, 450-455
CrossRef38
M. Buerke, H. Lemm, S. Dietz, K. Werdan. (2011) Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Herz 36:2, 73-83
CrossRef39
G. LANDONI, J. G. AUGOUSTIDES, F. GUARRACINO, F. SANTINI, M. PONSCHAB, D. PASERO, R. N. RODSETH, G. BIONDI-ZOCCAI, G. SILVAY, L. SALVI, E. CAMPORESI, M. COMIS, M. CONTE, S. BEVILACQUA, L. CABRINI, C. CARIELLO, F. CARAMELLI, V. DE SANTIS, P. DEL SARTO, D. DINI, A. FORTI, N. GALDIERI, G. GIORDANO, L. GOTTIN, M. GRECO, E. MAGLIONI, L. MANTOVANI, A. MANZATO, M. MELI, G. PATERNOSTER, D. PITTARELLO, K. N. RANA, L. RUGGERI, V. SALANDIN, F. SANGALLI, M. ZAMBON, M. ZUCCHETTI, E. BIGNAMI, O. ALFIERI, A. ZANGRILLO. (2011) Mortality reduction in cardiac anesthesia and intensive care: results of the first International Consensus Conference. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 55:3, 259-266
CrossRef40
A. Duveau, J. -F. Augusto, C. Gilet, P. Asfar. (2011) SEPSISPAM : évaluation de l’effet de deux niveaux de pression artérielle sur la survie des patients en choc septique. Réanimation 20:2, 98-104
CrossRef41
Koen J. Hartemink, A. B. Johan Groeneveld. (2011) Vasopressors and Inotropes in the Treatment of Human Septic Shock: Effect on Innate Immunity?. Inflammation
CrossRef42
Bruno Mégarbane, Sébastian Voicu, Nicolas Deye, Frédéric J. Baud. (2011) Defining refractory myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock: An ongoing elusive challenge. Critical Care Medicine 39:2, 422
CrossRef43
Alexandre Mebazaa, John Parissis, Raphael Porcher, Etienne Gayat, Maria Nikolaou, Fabio Vilas Boas, J. F. Delgado, Ferenc Follath. (2011) Short-term survival by treatment among patients hospitalized with acute heart failure: the global ALARM-HF registry using propensity scoring methods. Intensive Care Medicine 37:2, 290-301
CrossRef44
Aurélie Thooft, Raphaël Favory, Diamantino Salgado, Fabio S Taccone, Katia Donadello, Daniel De Backer, Jacques Creteur, Jean-Louis Vincent. (2011) Effects of changes in arterial pressure on organ perfusion during septic shock. Critical Care 15:5, R222
CrossRef45
A. Loza Vázquez, C. León Gil, A. León Regidor. (2011) New therapeutic alternatives for severe sepsis in the critical patient. A review. Medicina Intensiva (English Edition) 35:4, 236-245
CrossRef46
Paul E Marik. (2011) Surviving sepsis: going beyond the guidelines. Annals of Intensive Care 1:1, 17
CrossRef47
C. Charron, A. Vieillard-Baron. (2011) Sepsi e shock settico nell
adulto. EMC - AKOS - Trattato di Medicina 13:1, 1-6
CrossRef48
Ritesh Maharaj, Victoria Metaxa. (2011) Levosimendan and mortality after coronary revascularisation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Critical Care 15:3, R140
CrossRef49
Andrew A. House, Mikko Haapio, Johan Lassus, Rinaldo Bellomo, Claudio Ronco. (2011) Pharmacological Management of Cardiorenal Syndromes. International Journal of Nephrology 2011, 1-8
CrossRef50
E.C. Bruno. (2011) Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in the Treatment of Shock. Yearbook of Emergency Medicine 2011, 72-73
CrossRef51
E. Christiaan Boerma, Can Ince. (2010) The role of vasoactive agents in the resuscitation of microvascular perfusion and tissue oxygenation in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Medicine 36:12, 2004-2018
CrossRef52
B. Levy, S. Collin, N. Sennoun, N. Ducrocq, A. Kimmoun, P. Asfar, P. Perez, F. Meziani. (2010) Vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors in septic shock: from bench to bedside. Intensive Care Medicine 36:12, 2019-2029
CrossRef53
M. Buerke, H. Lemm, S. Dietz, K. Werdan. (2010) Infarktbedingter kardiogener Schock. Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin 47:8, 597-611
CrossRef54
Ole-Jakob How, Assami Røsner, Anders B. Kildal, Thor A. Stenberg, Petter F. Gjessing, Stig E. Hermansen, Truls Myrmel. (2010) Dobutamine-norepinephrine, but not vasopressin, restores the ventriculoarterial matching in experimental cardiogenic shock. Translational Research 156:5, 273-281
CrossRef55
Sean M. Bagshaw, Rinaldo Bellomo, Prasad Devarajan, Curtis Johnson, C. J. Karvellas, D. James Kutsiogiannis, Ravindra Mehta, Neesh Pannu, Adam Romanovsky, Geoffrey Sheinfeld, Samantha Taylor, Michael Zappitelli, R. T. Noel Gibney. (2010) Review article: Acute kidney injury in critical illness. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 57:11, 985-998
CrossRef56
(2010) Hospital-Acquired Infections Due to Gram-Negative Bacteria. New England Journal of Medicine 363:15, 1482-1484
Full Text57
Allan R. de Caen, Monica E. Kleinman, Leon Chameides, Dianne L. Atkins, Robert A. Berg, Marc D. Berg, Farhan Bhanji, Dominique Biarent, Robert Bingham, Ashraf H. Coovadia, Mary Fran Hazinski, Robert W. Hickey, Vinay M. Nadkarni, Amelia G. Reis, Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez, James Tibballs, Arno L. Zaritsky, David Zideman. (2010) Part 10: Paediatric basic and advanced life support. Resuscitation 81:1, e213-e259
CrossRef58
Jean-Louis Vincent. (2010) We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 38, S534-S538
CrossRef59
John T Parissis, Pinelopi Rafouli-Stergiou, Vassilios Stasinos, Panagiotis Psarogiannakopoulos, Alexandre Mebazaa. (2010) Inotropes in cardiac patients: update 2011. Current Opinion in Critical Care 16:5, 432-441
CrossRef60
James A. Russell. (2010) Vasopressin, levosimendan, and cardiovascular function in septic shock*. Critical Care Medicine 38:10, 2071-2073
CrossRef61
PATRICIA O'MALLEY. (2010) Vasopressors in Septic Shock. Clinical Nurse Specialist 24:5, 235-237
CrossRef62
Jonathan A. Silversides, Emma Lappin, Andrew J. Ferguson. (2010) Staphylococcal Toxic Shock Syndrome: Mechanisms and Management. Current Infectious Disease Reports 12:5, 392-400
CrossRef63
Jonathan E. Sevransky, William Checkley, Greg S. Martin. (2010) Critical care trial design and interpretation: A primer. Critical Care Medicine 38:9, 1882-1889
CrossRef64
Alexandra Chronopoulos, Mitchell H. Rosner, Dinna N. Cruz, Claudio Ronco. (2010) Acute kidney injury in elderly intensive care patients: a review. Intensive Care Medicine 36:9, 1454-1464
CrossRef65
(2010) Scientific Surgery. British Journal of Surgery 97:9, 1458-1458
CrossRef66
Amit Kumar. (2010) Hemodynamically complicated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: presentation and treatment. Future Cardiology 6:5, 591-602
CrossRef67
Xavier Monnet, Jean-Louis Teboul. (2010) Early Fluid Resuscitation. Current Infectious Disease Reports 12:5, 354-360
CrossRef68
Marc O. Maybauer, Keith R. Walley. (2010) Best vasopressor for advanced vasodilatory shock: should vasopressin be part of the mix?. Intensive Care Medicine 36:9, 1484-1487
CrossRef69
H. Thiele, B. Allam, G. Chatellier, G. Schuler, A. Lafont. (2010) Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials?. European Heart Journal 31:15, 1828-1835
CrossRef70
M. Buerke, H. Lemm, M. Russ, A. Schlitt, K. Werdan. (2010) Diagnostik und Therapie bei akut dekompensierter Herzinsuffizienz und kardiogenem Schock. Der Internist 51:8, 963-974
CrossRef71
Payal K. Gurnani, Gourang P. Patel, Christopher W. Crank, Dana Vais, Omar Lateef, Sergey Akimov, Robert Balk, David Simon. (2010) Impact of the implementation of a sepsis protocol for the management of fluid-refractory septic shock: A single-center, before-and-after study. Clinical Therapeutics 32:7, 1285-1293
CrossRef72
(2010) Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in Shock. New England Journal of Medicine 362:24, 2328-2331
Full Text73
Levy, Jerrold H., . (2010) Treating Shock — Old Drugs, New Ideas. New England Journal of Medicine 362:9, 841-843
Full Text74
F. Carini, C. Lo Piccolo, G. Cocorullo, P. Varia, S. Ferrara, V. Valenza. (2010) In vivo Microperfusion Studies: Validation and Potential Uses in Critical Patients. Research Journal of Biological Sciences 5:1, 42-50
CrossRef
- Letters
