ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2025
Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine as the Initial Vasoactive Agent in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial for Recruitment Rates and Protocol Adherence, the Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine in Pediatric Septic Shock Trial.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. 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.
- Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine as the Initial Vasoactive Agent in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial for Recruitment Rates and Protocol Adherence, the Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine in Pediatric Septic Shock (EPINESS) Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Do We Really Need a Perfect Vasoactive Agent for Low-middle Income Countries in Pediatric Septic Shock?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Pediatric guidelines recommend initial resuscitation of septic shock using either epinephrine or norepinephrine as first-line support. However, there are no trials comparing these two agents. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial was to test the feasibility of a study protocol, specifically in terms of recruitment rates and protocol adherence, comparing epinephrine and norepinephrine as first-line vasoactive agents in pediatric septic shock. Patients and methods: A double-blinded, randomized controlled single-center study was conducted in the Emergency Medicine Department (ED) and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at a tertiary referral hospital in India. Thirty children aged between 1 month and 17 years with suspected septic shock, in whom signs of shock persisted after the initial fluid bolus, were recruited. Participants were randomized: 1:1 to receive either epinephrine or norepinephrine (each 15), initiated at 0.05-0.1 µg/kg/min. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization to study-drug initiation time, and adherence to protocol. Exploratory clinical outcomes included proportion of shock resolution, adverse events, and hospital mortality. Results: Of 44 screened patients, 10 met exclusion criteria and 4 declined consents, with a recruitment rate of 3.2 patients/month. The median time to vasoactive initiation after randomization was 12 minutes (IQR 8-15). The median time for shock resolution was 31 hours (IQR 10.8-51.2) and 14 hours (IQR 11.5-16.5) in the epinephrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively. Adverse events meeting pre-determined stopping criteria occurred in 7/16 and 1/15 in the epinephrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively. One patient in each group died. Conclusions: A protocol randomizing children with septic shock to epinephrine vs norepinephrine was feasible in terms of protocol adherence and recruitment rates. These findings can inform the design of a definitive multicenter trial powered for patient-centered endpoints. How to cite this article: Nataraj R, Dalal P, Vijayaraghavan BKT, Venkatachalam P, Kumar V, Lakshmanan L,
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.