Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27448246›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2016

Milrinone for cardiac dysfunction in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Geert Koster, Hanneke J Bekema, Jørn Wetterslev, Christian Gluud, Frederik Keus, Iwan C C van der Horst

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock.Annals of intensive care · 2021
    Article
  8. Management of Acute Heart Failure during an Early Phase.International journal of heart failure · 2020
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Adjuvant therapy in acute heart failure.Intensive care medicine · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Geert KosterDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. g.koster@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8927-3077
Hanneke J BekemaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jørn WetterslevThe Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian GluudThe Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frederik KeusDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Iwan C C van der HorstDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMilrinone is an inotrope widely used for treatment of cardiac failure. Because previous meta-analyses had methodological flaws, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the effect of milrinone in critically ill adult patients with cardiac dysfunction.

methodsThis systematic review was performed according to The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Searches were conducted until November 2015. Patients with cardiac dysfunction were included. The primary outcome was serious adverse events (SAE) including mortality at maximum follow-up. The risk of bias was evaluated and trial sequential analyses were conducted. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

resultsA total of 31 randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 16 provided data for our analyses. All trials were at high risk of bias, and none reported the primary composite outcome SAE. Fourteen trials with 1611 randomised patients reported mortality data at maximum follow-up (RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.21). Milrinone did not significantly affect other patient-centred outcomes. All analyses displayed statistical and/or clinical heterogeneity of patients, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and/or settings and all featured missing data. DISCUSSION: The current evidence on the use of milrinone in critically ill adult patients with cardiac dysfunction suffers from considerable risks of both bias and random error and demonstrates no benefits. The use of milrinone for the treatment of critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction can be neither recommended nor refuted. Future randomised clinical trials need to be sufficiently large and designed to have low risk of bias.

Indexed as

AdultCritical IllnessHeart DiseasesHumansMilrinonePhosphodiesterase 3 InhibitorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMilrinonePhosphodiesterase 3 InhibitorsHeart failureMilrinoneSystematic reviewTrial sequential analysis

Identifiers

PMID27448246
PMCPMC4992029
OpenAlexW2503094626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.