ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2012
Inotropes and vasopressors: more than haemodynamics!
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association of vasoactive-inotropic score and surgical patients' outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of Centhaquine on the Coagulation Cascade in Normal State and Uncontrolled Hemorrhage: A Multiphase Study Combining Ex Vivo and In Vivo Experiments in Different Species.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Vasopressin and its analogues in shock states: a review.Annals of intensive care · 2020Review
- Hemodynamic support in the early phase of septic shock: a review of challenges and unanswered questions.Annals of intensive care · 2018Review
- Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.Biomedical engineering online · 2018Review
- Regulation of mitochondrial bioenergetic function by hydrogen sulfide. Part II. Pathophysiological and therapeutic aspects.British journal of pharmacology · 2014Review
- Vasopressors in shock: too early to move away from catecholamines?British journal of pharmacology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Circulatory shock is characterized by arterial hypotension requiring fluid resuscitation combined with inotropes and/or vasopressors to correct the otherwise life-threatening impairment of oxygen supply to peripheral tissues. Catecholamines represent the current therapeutic choice, but this standard is only based on empirical clinical experience. Although there is evidence that some catecholamines may be better than others, it is a matter of debate which one may be the most effective and/or the safest for the different situations. In their review in this issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology, Bangash et al. provide an overview of the pharmacology as well as the available clinical data on the therapeutic use of endogenous catecholamines, their synthetic derivatives and a range of other agents (vasopressin and its analogues, PDE inhibitors and levosimendan). The authors point out that, despite well-established receptor pharmacology, the clinical effects of these treatments are poorly understood. Hence, further investigations are essential to determine which catecholamine, or, in a broader sense, which alternative vasopressor and/or inotrope is the most appropriate for a particular clinical condition.
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.