ArticleJAMA network open2025
Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine as Initial Treatment in Children With Septic Shock.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock in Children 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Care Pathway and Outcomes in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Narrative Review from Emergency Department Recognition to PICU Management.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Vasopressor Strategy in Pediatric Sepsis: A Clinical Pharmacology Perspective.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Management of arterial hypotension in critically Ill children: a narrative review and practical approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Vasoactive drug use in children with community acquired septic shock in Australia and New Zealand.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: There is no consensus and wide practice variation in the choice of initial vasoactive agent in children with septic shock. Objective: To determine whether receipt of epinephrine compared with norepinephrine as the first vasoactive medication administered is associated with improved outcomes among children with septic shock without known cardiac dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, retrospective cohort study used propensity score matching to examine encounters in which a patient was diagnosed with septic shock and required a vasoactive infusion within 24 hours of ED arrival at a freestanding quaternary care children's hospital. Participants included patients aged 1 month to 18 years who presented to the ED and were diagnosed with septic shock without known cardiac dysfunction and began an epinephrine or norepinephrine infusion within 24 hours of ED arrival between June 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023. Data were analyzed from March 1 to December 31, 2024. Exposure: Epinephrine vs norepinephrine as the first vasoactive medication received. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was major adverse kidney events by 30 days (MAKE30). Secondary outcomes were 30-day in-hospital mortality, 3-day mortality, need for kidney replacement therapy or persistent kidney dysfunction, endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation days, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed with the χ2 test of proportions for binary variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Results: Among 231 included encounters, the median (IQR) age was 11.4 (5.6-15.4) years, 126 were female (54.6%), and 142 had a medical history that predisposed them to sepsis (61.5%). Most (147 [63.6%]) initially received an epinephrine infusion and 84 (36.4%) received norepinephrine. In the epinephrine group, 9 of 147 (6.1%) met the outcome of MAKE30 and 6 of 147 (4.1%) died within 30 days. In the norepinephrine group, 3 of 84 (3.6%) met MAKE30 and there were no deaths. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome, MAKE30. With 2:1 propensity matching, epinephrine was associated with greater 30-day mortality compared with norepinephrine (3.7% vs 0%; risk difference: 3.7%; 95% CI, 0.2%-7.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, those receiving epinephrine had greater 30-day mortality but no difference in MAKE30. Prospective, confirmatory studies are needed to determine if norepinephrine should be the first-line vasoactive agent in pediatric 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.