ArticlePloS one2013
The effectiveness of inodilators in reducing short term mortality among patient with severe cardiogenic shock: a propensity-based analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Milrinone versus dobutamine in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock; a propensity score matched analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- The current use of vasoactive agents in cardiogenic shock related to myocardial infarction and acute decompensated heart failure.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Review
- Improved mortality and haemodynamics with milrinone in cardiogenic shock due to acute decompensated heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- Evolving Presentation of Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of the Medical Literature and Current Practices.Cardiology and therapy · 2022Review
- Inodilators May Improve the In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Levosimendan Administration May Provide More Benefit for Survival in Patients with Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Experiencing Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Characteristics of circulatory failure after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort study.Open heart · 2022Observational
- Vasoactive pharmacological management according to SCAI class in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.PloS one · 2022Article
- Evidence and Current Use of Levosimendan in the Treatment of Heart Failure: Filling the Gap.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Review
- Inotropic Agents and Vasopressors in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock.Current heart failure reports · 2020Review
- Short-term treatments for acute cardiac care: inotropes and inodilators.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2020Article
- Haemodynamic Balance in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: An Expert Perspective on the Role of Levosimendan.Cardiac failure review · 2019Review
- Epinephrine, inodilator, or no inotrope in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantation: a single-center experience.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
- Adjuvant therapy in acute heart failure.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Cardiogenic Shock: Recent Developments and Significant Knowledge Gaps.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Current real-life use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock - adrenaline use is associated with excess organ injury and mortality.Critical care (London, England) · 2016Article
- Acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: a multidisciplinary practical guidance.Intensive care medicine · 2016Review
- Understanding the differences among inotropes.Intensive care medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe best catecholamine regimen for cardiogenic shock has been poorly evaluated. When a vasopressor is required to treat patients with the most severe form of cardiogenic shock, whether inodilators should be added or whether inopressors can be used alone has not been established. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of these two strategies on short-term mortality in patients with severe cardiogenic shocks. METHODS AND
resultsThree observational cohorts of patients with decompensated heart failure were pooled to comprise a total of 1,272 patients with cardiogenic shocks. Of these 1,272 patients, 988 were considered to be severe because they required a vasopressor during the first 24 hours. We developed a propensity-score (PS) model to predict the individual probability of receiving one of the two regimens (inopressors alone or a combination) conditionally on baseline-measured covariates. The benefit of the treatment regimen on the mortality rate was estimated by fitting a weighted Cox regression model. A total of 643 patients (65.1%) died within the first 30 days (inopressors alone: 293 (72.0%); inopressors and inodilators: 350 (60.0%)). After PS weighting, we observed that the use of an inopressor plus an inodilator was associated with an improved short-term mortality (HR: 0.66 [0.55-0.80]) compared to inopressors alone.
conclusionsIn the most severe forms of cardiogenic shock where a vasopressor is immediately required, adding an inodilator may improve short-term mortality. This result should be confirmed in a randomized, controlled trial.
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.