ArticleJournal of intensive care2025
A pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial on individualized blood pressure targets versus standard care among critically ill patients with shock.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mortality effect of higher versus lower blood pressure targets in vasodilatory shock: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of diastolic blood pressure time under range on mortality and acute kidney injury in septic patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Renal perfusion pressure: role and implications in critical illness.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimizing relative hypotension, or mean arterial pressure (MAP) deficit, by targeting patients' own pre-illness MAP (individualized MAP) during vasopressor therapy is a potential strategy to improve outcomes among ICU patients with shock. We conducted a prospective, open label, parallel-group, pilot RCT to assess feasibility and safety of this intervention compared to standard care.
methodsThirty-seven eligible patients, aged 40 years or older and receiving vasopressor support for shock, were randomly allocated to individualized MAP target (N = 17) or standard MAP target (N = 20) at two multidisciplinary ICUs in Australia and Ireland. Pre-specified endpoints were time-weighted average MAP-deficit (i.e., percentage difference between patients' pre-illness MAP and achieved-MAP), percentage time spent with > 20% MAP-deficit, major adverse kidney events (MAKE-14), 14-day and 90-day all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular adverse events within 28 days of randomization. All comparisons of efficacy outcomes were exploratory.
resultsThe median MAP-deficit and percentage time with > 20% MAP-deficit with individualized MAP vs. standard MAP were 7% [interquartile range: 2-16] vs. 18% [9-23] (p = 0.048), and 8% [0-43] vs. 53% [14-75] (p = 0.03), respectively. MAKE-14 (2/17 (12%) vs. 4/20 (20%), p = 0.67), 14-day mortality (1/17 (6%) vs. 3/20 (15%), p = 0.61), 90-day mortality (2/17 (12%) vs. 4/20 (20%), p = 0.67) and cardiovascular adverse events were similar for both groups.
conclusionsThis pilot RCT demonstrated that an individualized MAP target strategy was feasible to implement. No adverse safety signals were evident. These data and study procedures helped inform the design of a definitive RCT on the question of individualized MAP targets among critically ill patients with shock. STUDY REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618000571279.
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.