ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2024
The use of angiotensin II for the management of distributive shock: expert consensus statements.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A retrospective cohort analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of perioperative angiotensin II to adrenergic vasopressors as a first-line vasopressor in kidney transplant recipients.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Angiotensin II Therapy in Vasoplegic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growing body of evidence supporting the use of angiotensin II (ATII) in distributive shock, its integration into existing treatment algorithms requires careful consideration of factors related to patient comorbidities, hemodynamic parameters, cost-effectiveness, and risk-benefit balance. Moreover, several questions regarding its use in clinical practice warrant further investigations. To address these challenges, a group of Italian intensive care specialists (the panel) developed a consensus process using a modified Delphi technique.
methodsThe panel defined five clinical questions during an online scoping workshop and then provided a short list of statements related to each clinical question based on literature review and clinical experience. A total of 20 statements were collected. Two coordinators screened and selected the final list of statements to be included in the online survey, which consisted of 17 statements. The consensus was reached when ≥ 75% of respondents assigned a score within the 3-point range of 1-3 (disagreement) or 7-9 (agreement).
resultsOverall, a consensus on agreement was reached on 13 statements defining the existing gaps in scientific evidence, the possibility of evaluating the addition of drugs with different mechanisms of action for the treatment of refractory shock, the utility of ATII in reducing the catecholamine requirements in the treatment of vasopressor-resistant septic shock, and the effectiveness of ATII in treating patients in whom angiotensin-converting enzyme activity is reduced or pharmacologically blocked. It was widely shared that renin concentration can be used to identify patients who most likely benefit from ATII to restore vascular tone. Thus, the patients who might benefit most from using ATII were defined. Lastly, some potential barriers to the use of ATII were described.
conclusionsATII was recognized as a useful treatment to reduce catecholamine requirements in treating vasopressor-resistant septic shock. At the same time, the need for additional clinical trials to further elucidate the efficacy and safety of ATII, as well as investigations into potential mechanisms of action and optimization of treatment protocols in patients with refractory distributive shock, emerged.
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.