ArticleAnnals of intensive care2025
Extremely early initiation of vasopressors might not decrease short-term mortality for adults with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing vascular tone and vascular responsiveness to norepinephrine: How simple tools can help?Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- It's Time to Consider How We Should Use Vasopressors, Rather Than Just Which We Should Use.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Vasopressin and its analogues in patients with septic shock: holy Grail or unfulfilled promise?Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Continuous Hemofiltration During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Adult Septic Shock: A Comparative Cohort Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Vasopressin use across shock states: international insights from an international ESICM-endorsed survey: the PRESS Survey.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal timing for initiating vasopressor therapy in patients with septic shock remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the impact of early versus late vasopressor initiation on clinical outcomes.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies comparing early and late vasopressor administration in septic shock patients were included. The primary outcome was short-term mortality, and subgroup analyses were performed based on different initiation timings.
resultsEleven studies with 6,661 patients were included. Different studies define the 'early administration' timeframe variously, ranging from one to seven hours. No significant difference in short-term mortality was observed between early and late administration in the combined analysis of 3,757 patients from two RCTs and three quasi-experimental studies (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.36, 1.19], I²: 82%). However, lower mortality was found in subgroups with early but not extremely early initiation (one to three hours, OR: 0.70, 95% CI: [0.60, 0.82], I²: 0%), and those using septic shock diagnosis as time zero (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.48, 0.85], I²: 39%).
conclusionOur findings found that earlier initiation of vasopressor therapy, particularly within one to three hours after the diagnosis of septic shock, may be associated with reduced short-term mortality in certain subgroups. However, due to the heterogeneity in study definitions and potential confounding factors, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Further standardized investigations are warranted to precisely determine the optimal timing for vasopressor initiation to maximize survival outcomes in patients with septic shock.
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.