ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2020
Inotropic Agents and Vasopressors in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced recovery mitigates sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors associated mobility decline in valve surgery patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Biventricular dysfunction predicts mortality in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- The carbon monoxide prodrug oCOm-21 increases CaPhysiological reports · 2024Article
- Management and clinical outcomes of cardiogenic shock in King Abdulaziz University Hospital: A retrospective study.Saudi medical journal · 2023Article
- Levosimendan in intensive care and emergency medicine: literature update and expert recommendations for optimal efficacy and safety.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death in patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is characterised by reduced cardiac output secondary to systolic dysfunction which can lead to multi-organ failure. The mainstay of medical treatment in CS are inotropes and vasopressors to improve cardiac output. However, current clinical guidelines do not direct clinicians as to which agents to use and in what combinations. This article aims to review the current evidence on the management of CS with a major focus on the use of inotropes and vasopressors.
methodA literature review was conducted analysing published literature from the following databases: PubMed, MedLine, Cochrane Library and Embase, as well as a manual search of articles that were deemed relevant. Relevant articles were identified by using keywords such as "cardiogenic shock".
resultsLiterature was assessed to review the use of inotropes and vasopressors in CS. Dopamine and adrenaline were associated with increased mortality and arrhythmias. Dobutamine was associated with an improvement in cardiac output, at the determinant of causing arrhythmias. Conversely, noradrenaline was associated with a lower likelihood of arrhythmias and most importantly decreased mortality in CS. Compared to other inotropes, levosimendan appears to have a better safety profile and is associated with decreased mortality in CS, particularly when combined with a vasopressor. Our literature review suggests that treatment combination of the inotrope levosimendan with the vasopressor noradrenaline may be the most effective management option in CS.
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.