Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30411243›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2018

Mean arterial pressure and mortality in patients with distributive shock: a retrospective analysis of the MIMIC-III database.

Jean-Louis Vincent, Nathan D Nielsen, Nathan I Shapiro, Margaret E Gerbasi, Aaron Grossman, Robin Doroff, Feng Zeng, Paul J Young, James A Russell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Alarm configuration and adherence to prescribed mean arterial pressure targets in the intensive care unit: A multicentre pre-post evaluation.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Vasoactive Agents in Burn Patients: Perspectives on Angiotensin-II.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2025
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Jean-Louis VincentDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. jlvincent@intensive.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6011-6951
Nathan D NielsenDivision of Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Nathan I ShapiroDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Margaret E GerbasiSAGE Therapeutics Inc, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA.
Aaron GrossmanPolicy Analysis Inc, (PAI), Brookline, MA, 02445, USA.
Robin DoroffPolicy Analysis Inc, (PAI), Brookline, MA, 02445, USA.
Feng ZengLa Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, San Diego, CA, 92121, USA.
Paul J YoungMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, 6021, New Zealand.
James A RussellDivision of Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaintenance of mean arterial pressure (MAP) at levels sufficient to avoid tissue hypoperfusion is a key tenet in the management of distributive shock. We hypothesized that patients with distributive shock sometimes have a MAP below that typically recommended and that such hypotension is associated with increased mortality.

methodsIn this retrospective analysis of the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA, we included all intensive care unit (ICU) admissions between 2001 and 2012 with distributive shock, defined as continuous vasopressor support for ≥ 6 h and no evidence of low cardiac output shock. Hypotension was evaluated using five MAP thresholds: 80, 75, 65, 60 and 55 mmHg. We evaluated the longest continuous episode below each threshold during vasopressor therapy. The primary outcome was ICU mortality.

resultsOf 5347 patients with distributive shock, 95.7%, 91.0%, 62.0%, 36.0% and 17.2%, respectively, had MAP < 80, < 75, < 65, < 60 and < 55 mmHg for more than two consecutive hours. On average, ICU mortality increased by 1.3, 1.8, 5.1, 7.9 and 14.4 percentage points for each additional 2 h with MAP < 80, < 75, < 65, < 60 and < 55 mmHg, respectively. Multivariable logistic modeling showed that, compared to patients in whom MAP was never < 65 mmHg, ICU mortality increased as duration of hypotension < 65 mmHg increased [for > 0 to < 2 h, odds ratio (OR) 1.76, p = 0.005; ≥ 6 to < 8 h, OR 2.90, p < 0.0001; ≥ 20 h, OR 7.10, p < 0.0001]. When hypotension was defined as MAP < 60 or < 55 mmHg, the associations between duration and mortality were generally stronger than when hypotension was defined as MAP < 65 mmHg. There was no association between hypotension and mortality when hypotension was defined as MAP < 80 mmHg.

conclusionsWithin the limitations due to the nature of the study, most patients with distributive shock experienced at least one episode with MAP < 65 mmHg lasting > 2 h. Episodes of prolonged hypotension were associated with higher mortality.

Indexed as

Acute circulatory failureICU mortalityMean arterial pressureMultiple organ failure

Identifiers

PMID30411243
PMCPMC6223403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.