Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31200777›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2019

Minimizing catecholamines and optimizing perfusion.

Daniel De Backer, Pierre Foulon

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Boulevard du Triomphe 201, B-1160, Brussels, Belgium. ddebacke@ulb.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9841-5762
Pierre FoulonDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Boulevard du Triomphe 201, B-1160, Brussels, Belgium.
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Catecholamines are used to increase cardiac output and blood pressure, aiming ultimately at restoring/improving tissue perfusion. While intuitive in its concept, this approach nevertheless implies to be effective that regional organ perfusion would increase in parallel to cardiac output or perfusion pressure and that the catecholamine does not have negative effects on the microcirculation. Inotropic agents may be considered in some conditions, but it requires prior optimization of cardiac preload. Alternative approaches would be either to minimize exposure to vasopressors, tolerating hypotension and trying to prioritize perfusion but this may be valid as long as perfusion of the organ is preserved, or to combine moderate doses of vasopressors to vasodilatory agents, especially if these are predominantly acting on the microcirculation. In this review, we will discuss the pros and cons of the use of catecholamines and alternative agents for improving tissue perfusion in septic shock.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureCardiac OutputCatecholaminesHumansMicrocirculationPerfusionResuscitationCatecholaminesCardiac outputFluid therapyInotropic agentsMicrocirculationVasopressor agents

Identifiers

PMID31200777
PMCPMC6570631
OpenAlexW2952316075

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.