ReviewJournal of intensive medicine2022
Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?
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.
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.
The Multicentre Prospective Observational Study on the Management of Septic Shock (Observational Study on Septic Shock, the OSS Study)
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Methylene Blue on Sublingual Microcirculation in Patients with Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Two-dimensional shear wave elastography-based assessment of liver stiffness in critically ill patients with septic shock: a prospective observational study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of Weight-based versus Absolute Norepinephrine Dosing on Mortality Risk in Obese Patients with Septic Shock: An Observational, Multicohort, Retrospective Study.Anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- A potential role for trace amines in the treatment of septic shock.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Review
- The poikilothermic hypothesis of sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Septic Cardiomyopathy: Age-Dependent Physiology and Hemodynamic Aspects-A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of vasopressin-first weaning versus norepinephrine-first weaning in critically ill patients.International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- Vasopressin and its analogues in patients with septic shock: holy Grail or unfulfilled promise?Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Insights Into the Pathophysiology of Catecholamine-Refractory Shock: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- Biomarkers in cardiogenic shock: old pals, new friends.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Dopamine, norepinephrine, and vasopressin accelerate particle transport velocity in murine tracheal epithelium via substance-specific receptor pathways: dependency on intra- and extracellular CaFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Effect of ultrashort-acting β-blockers on 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- The Eight Unanswered and Answered Questions about the Use of Vasopressors in Septic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.