ArticleJACC. Advances2023
Milrinone vs Dobutamine for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Implications of Renal Function and Injury.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving Evidence-Driven Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock Management.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Variation in Vasoactive Treatment Selection for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Risk Factors for Postoperative Vasoplegia Following Implant of Left Ventricular Assist Devices.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of dobutamine versus milrinone in cardiogenic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Global cardiology science & practice · 2026Article
- Dobutamine versus milrinone for inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with right ventricular involvement: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Milrinone versus dobutamine in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock; a propensity score matched analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- The current use of vasoactive agents in cardiogenic shock related to myocardial infarction and acute decompensated heart failure.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Managing Arrhythmias in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights Into Milrinone and Dobutamine Therapy.Cureus · 2024Review
- Trials and Tribulations of Inotrope Choice in Cardiogenic Shock With Renal Dysfunction.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiogenic shock is associated with poor clinical outcomes. There is a paucity of prospective data examining the efficacy and safety of inotropic therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock and renal dysfunction. Objectives: This study sought to examine the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine in relation to renal function. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the DOREMI (Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock) trial, we examined clinical outcomes with milrinone compared to dobutamine after stratification based on baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60 ml/min/1.73 m Results: Baseline eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m Conclusions: In patients requiring inotropic support for cardiogenic shock, baseline renal dysfunction and AKI are common. A modulating effect of AKI on the relative efficacy of milrinone compared to dobutamine was observed, characterized by attenuation of a potential clinical benefit with milrinone compared to dobutamine in patients who develop AKI.
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.