Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36864853›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2022

Vasopressor Administration via Peripheral Intravenous Access for Emergency Department Stabilization in Septic Shock Patients.

Scott Kilian, Aaron Surrey, Weston McCarron, Kristen Mueller, Brian Todd Wessman

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Scott KilianDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5681-2505
Aaron SurreyDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9846-5938
Weston McCarronDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1358-8128
Kristen MuellerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9799-0861
Brian Todd WessmanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Emergency Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8020-2678
Barnes-Jewish Hospital · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Septic shock is commonly treated in the emergency department (ED) with vasopressors. Prior data have shown that vasopressor administration through a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) is feasible. Objectives: To characterize vasopressor administration for patients presenting to an academic ED in septic shock. Materials and methods: Retrospective observational cohort study evaluating initial vasopressor administration for septic shock. ED patients from June 2018 to May 2019 were screened. Exclusion criteria included other shock states, hospital transfers, or heart failure history. Patient demographics, vasopressor data, and length of stay (LOS) were collected. Cases were grouped by initiation site: PIV, ED placed central line (ED-CVL), or tunneled port/indwelling central line (Prior-CVL). Results: Of the 136 patients identified, 69 were included. Vasopressors were initiated via PIV in 49%, ED-CVL in 25%, and prior-CVL in 26%. The time to initiation was 214.8 minutes in PIV and 294.7 minutes in ED-CVL ( Conclusion: Vasopressors are being administered via PIVs for ED septic shock patients. Norepinephrine comprised the majority of initial PIV vasopressor administration. There were no documented episodes of extravasation or ischemia. Further studies should look at the duration of PIV administration with potential avoidance of central venous cannulation altogether in appropriate patients. How to cite this article: Kilian S, Surrey A, McCarron W, Mueller K, Wessman BT. Vasopressor Administration via Peripheral Intravenous Access for Emergency Department Stabilization in Septic Shock Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):811-815.

Indexed as

Central venous lineExtravasationNorepinephrinePeripheral vasopressorsSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID36864853
PMCPMC9973174
OpenAlexW4283724536

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.