ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Vasopressor Use in Acute Burn Resuscitation: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2026. 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.
- Severe Burn Injury Alters Expression of Adrenergic Receptor Transcripts in a Rodent Model.European burn journal · 2026Article
- Commentary: Vasopressors in Early Burn Resuscitation: Physiological Concerns Revisited.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Vasopressor Use in Acute Burn Resuscitation: A Retrospective Study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVasopressors are often introduced in severe burn patients who respond poorly to fluid resuscitation to maintain adequate blood pressure and avoid fluid creep. This study aims to characterise these patients and explore potential correlations between vasopressor use and patient outcomes.
methodsMedical records from 2010 to 2023 for patients aged ≥ 18 years with burns ≥ 20% of the total body surface area (TBSA) were extracted from the TriNetX Research Network, a global federated health research platform aggregating de-identified electronic health records. The patients were divided into two groups: those who received vasopressors within the first 2 days of hospitalisation and those who did not. Statistical analysis included Cramér-von Mises and χ
resultsOf 6872 included patients, 17.7% received vasopressors within the first two days of hospitalisation. These patients were older, had more comorbidities and sustained more severe burns. After PSM we included 1206 patients in both cohorts (VP+ and VP-). Acute kidney injury occurred within 3 days in 51.0% of the VP+ group and 28.4% in VP- (OR 2.62, 95% CI: 2.20-3.11). VP+ patients also had higher rates of sepsis (30.8% vs. 22.9%, OR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.25-1.81) and higher mortality (45.1% vs. 32.7%, OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.43-2.01) within 30 days following hospitalisation.
conclusionWhile vasopressors are frequently administered as part of burn resuscitation, their use was associated with higher rates of early acute kidney injury and an increased 30-day mortality rate. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Potent vasopressor use to support the circulation is commonly combined with fluid resuscitation in modern intensive care, and this is a prominent aspect of care in major burn cases. In this retrospective analysis of a commercial, de-identified health care dataset (primarily from US hospitals or health systems), matched cases over 14 recent years were analysed by early vasopressor use (or not) and then for important outcomes including mortality. Vasopressor use was associated with some complications and negative outcomes, though there are likely many factors which may contribute to negative outcomes which were not included in this analysis.
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.