Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35720230›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2022

Mean Arterial Pressure Goal in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Sauradeep Sarkar, Sahib Singh, Amit Rout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Mean arterial pressure in critically ill adults receiving vasopressors: A multicentre, observational study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Excessive vasopressors or excessive hypotension: Searching for the goldilocks zone in mean arterial pressure targets.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Sauradeep SarkarDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Sahib SinghDepartment of Internal Medicine, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Amit RoutDepartment of Cardiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current guidelines recommend targeting a mean arterial pressure (MAP) goal of 65 mm Hg or more in critically ill medical patients. Prospective studies have shown that a higher MAP goal can improve survival and decrease end-organ damage. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to show similar results. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether a high MAP goal compared to a standard or low MAP goal will improve clinical outcomes in critically ill medical patients. Methods: We searched electronic databases for RCTs comparing standard MAP goals versus high MAP goals in critically ill medical patients. A standard MAP goal was defined as a MAP of 60 - 70 mm Hg, and a MAP of 70 mm Hg or more was considered a high MAP goal. Outcomes of interest were mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of critically ill patients: cardiac arrest and septic shock. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for a dichotomous outcome. For continuous outcomes, the inverse variance method was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. A P value of 0.05 or less was considered significant. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 3,753 patients (standard MAP goal: n = 1,872 and high MAP goal: n = 1,881) were included in the final analysis. Both standard/low MAP goal and high MAP goal were associated with similar risk for mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI (0.87, 1.01), P = 0.11), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD 0.51, 95% CI (-0.29, 1.31), P = 0.21) and ICU length of stay (SMD 0.22, 95% CI (-0.07, 0.5), P = 0.14). Subgroup analysis in cardiac arrest patient showed decreased ICU stay (SMD 0.55, 95% CI (0.31, 0.80), P < 0.000001) in patients with higher MAP goal compared to the standard MAP goal group without any difference in mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analysis of patients with septic shock had similar outcomes in both MAP targets. Conclusions: In critically ill patients, a higher MAP goal of > 70 mm Hg was associated with a similar risk of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay when compared with a standard MAP goal of 60 - 70 mm Hg.

Indexed as

Cardiac arrestMean arterial pressureSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID35720230
PMCPMC9187355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.