ArticleJournal of cardiovascular pharmacology2020
Comparison of Positive Inotropic Agents in the Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend the consideration of positive inotropes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who have low cardiac index and evidence of systemic hypoperfusion or congestion. However, there is no evidence detailing the first line agent for the management of ADHF. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of dobutamine to milrinone for the treatment of ADHF. This was a single-center, retrospective study at a tertiary academic medical center, approved by Partner's Health Care Institutional Review Board. Patients included in this study were those admitted with ADHF who received dobutamine or milrinone from June 2015 to July 2017. A total of 95 dobutamine and 40 milrinone patients were included in the analysis. Median hospital length of stay was 12 days in the dobutamine group versus 10 days in the milrinone group (P = 0.34). Rehospitalization within 30 days occurred in 29.5% of patients in the dobutamine group versus 17.5% of patients in the milrinone group (P = 0.15). Median intensive care unit length of stay was 4.5 days in the dobutamine group versus 10 days in the milrinone group (P < 0.01). All other minor end points including all-cause mortality, progression to renal failure within 72 hours, rehospitalization in 90 days, and urine output within 72 hours of therapy were not found to be statistically significant. In addition, a post hoc analysis compared major and minor outcomes between milrinone and dobutamine using linear and logistic regression with adjustment for baseline characteristics. There were not any statistically significant findings in the post hoc analysis. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between the 2 groups other than longer intensive care unit length of stay in the milrinone group.
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.