ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury and lower APACHE IV scores: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration and prospect of core research hotspots in sepsis-induced myocardial injury based on bibliometrics.Medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable gradient boosting machine model for predicting in-hospital mortality in sepsis-induced myocardial injury: a multicenter development, validation, and web-based clinical implementation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Real-World Evidence for Combination Sedation: Propofol Plus Dexmedetomidine and Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveSepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.
resultsAmong 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores < 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.
conclusionDexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.
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.