Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2017
Effect of small-dose levosimendan on mortality rates and organ functions in Chinese elderly patients with sepsis.
Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of levosimendan on mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Inodilators in septic shock: should these be used?Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Multiorgan Drug Action of Levosimendan in Critical Illnesses.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- Targeting the Blood-Brain Barrier to Prevent Sepsis-Associated Cognitive Impairment.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2019Review
- Use of Levosimendan in Intensive Care Unit Settings: An Opinion Paper.Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology · 2019Review
- Determinants and outcomes associated with decisions to deny intensive care unit admission in Tunisian ICU.The Pan African medical journal · 2018Article
- Levosimendan for Perioperative Cardioprotection: Myth or Reality?Current cardiology reviews · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAs a primary cause of death not only in Western countries but also in the People's Republic of China, sepsis is diagnosed as abnormal organ functions as a result of a disordered response to a severe infection. This study was designed to assess the effect of small-dose levosimendan without a loading dose on mortality rates and organ functions in Chinese elderly patients with sepsis.
methodsFollowing a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded design, 240 Chinese elderly patients with sepsis shock were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). All patients were randomly and evenly assigned into a levosimendan group (number of patients =120) and a control group (number of patients =120). The control group underwent standard care, and the levosimendan group was administered levosimendan in addition to standard care.
resultsAll participants, comprising 134 males (55.8%) and 106 females (44.2%), were 70 (67-73) years old. Baseline characteristics, preexisting illnesses, initial infections, organ failures, and additional agents and therapies showed no significant difference between the two groups (
conclusionSmall-dose levosimendan could not reduce the mortality rates or enhance the respiratory, liver, renal, and coagulation functions, but could shorten the days of ICU and hospital stay, and improve the cardiovascular function, which suggests that small-dose levosimendan is valuable for Chinese elderly patients with sepsis.
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.