Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2010
Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock.
Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 568 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine as the First Vasopressor Agent in the Management of Shock
French Observatory on the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in 2016
Assessing Catecholamine Treatment Initiation Options: Norepinephrine vs Dopamine for Cardiogenic Shock
Who cites it
568 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,879 citations in OpenAlex.
- Closed-loop vasopressor systems for hemodynamic control in perioperative and critical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Pooled it
- European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2025: post-resuscitation care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Guideline
- The effects of vasopressor choice on renal outcomes in septic shock: a systematic review of randomised trials as a guide for future research.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Application of norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock: a meta-analysis.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Early management of adult sepsis and septic shock: Korean clinical practice guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2024Guideline
- Mortality, morbidity & clinical outcome with different types of vasopressors in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients- a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of methylene blue on outcomes in patients with distributive shock: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of blood pressure targets on venous return physiology during post cardiac arrest care.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Trial
- An index of the initial blood pressure response to angiotensin II treatment and its association with clinical outcomes in vasodilatory shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Trial
- ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers differentially alter the response to angiotensin II treatment in vasodilatory shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Effect of prehospital high-dose glucocorticoid on hemodynamics in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a sub-study of the STEROHCA trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Effect of intravenous low-dose norepinephrine on blood loss in non-tourniquet total knee arthroplasty under general anesthesia: a randomized, double-blind, controlled, single-center trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Trial
- Bedside monitoring of the vascular response to norepinephrine in early septic shock: VNERi trajectories and comparison with dynamic clinical measures.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Review
- Rapid Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Setting.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Evolving Evidence-Driven Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock Management.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Implementation of a standardized Impella-specific management pathway in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- The 'Chloride Theory' for Heart Failure Pathophysiology: An Updated Narrative Review 2025.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Variation in Vasoactive Treatment Selection for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
508 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth 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.
methodsIn 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 microg per kilogram of body weight per minute for dopamine or a dose of 0.19 microg 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.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionsAlthough 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.)
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.