Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36788938›Full record

ReviewJournal of intensive medicine2022

Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?

Mathieu Jozwiak

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of intensive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07453901 (The Multicentre Prospective Observational Study on the Management of Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT07453901 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Multicentre Prospective Observational Study on the Management of Septic Shock (Observational Study on Septic Shock, the OSS Study)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorBicetre HospitalRan2026 to 2028Enrolled5,000ConditionsSeptic Shock
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. The poikilothermic hypothesis of sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Comparison of vasopressin-first weaning versus norepinephrine-first weaning in critically ill patients.International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Article
  8. A systematic review and meta-analysis of noradrenaline compared to adrenaline in the management of septic shock.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Effects of Early Use of Methylene Blue and Vasopressin on Noradrenaline Dose in Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mathieu JozwiakService de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire l'Archet 1, 151 route Saint Antoine de Ginestière, 06200 Nice, France.
Université Côte d'Azur · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasopressors are the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in patients with septic shock. Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in these patients. In addition to norepinephrine, there are many other potent vasopressors with specific properties and/or advantages that act on vessels through different pathways after activation of specific receptors; these could be of interest in patients with septic shock. Dopamine is no longer recommended in patients with septic shock because its use is associated with a higher rate of cardiac arrhythmias without any benefit in terms of mortality or organ dysfunction. Epinephrine is currently considered as a second-line vasopressor therapy, because of the higher rate of associated metabolic and cardiac adverse effects compared with norepinephrine; however, it may be considered in settings where norepinephrine is unavailable or in patients with refractory septic shock and myocardial dysfunction. Owing to its potential effects on mortality and renal function and its norepinephrine-sparing effect, vasopressin is recommended as second-line vasopressor therapy instead of norepinephrine dose escalation in patients with septic shock and persistent arterial hypotension. However, two synthetic analogs of vasopressin, namely, terlipressin and selepressin, have not yet been employed in the management of patients with septic shock, as their use is associated with a higher rate of digital ischemia. Finally, angiotensin Ⅱ also appears to be a promising vasopressor in patients with septic shock, especially in the most severe cases and/or in patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Nevertheless, due to limited evidence and concerns regarding safety (which remains unclear because of potential adverse effects related to its marked vasopressor activity), angiotensin Ⅱ is currently not recommended in patients with septic shock. Further studies are needed to better define the role of these vasopressors in the management of these patients.

Indexed as

Adverse effectsMortalitySepsisVasopressors

Identifiers

PMID36788938
PMCPMC9924015
OpenAlexW4282600974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.