ReviewIntensive care medicine2026
State-of-the-art review: ß-blockade in critical illness.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critical illness is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system which plays an important adaptive role in maintaining cardiovascular stability and organ perfusion. However, excessive sustained adrenergic stimulation may become maladaptive, contributing to tachyarrhythmias, myocardial injury, immune dysregulation, metabolic derangements, and organ dysfunction. This state-of-the-art review evaluates the role of ß-blocker therapy as a potential strategy to modulate or counteract the adrenergic response in critically ill patients. Current data suggest that their use remains highly context-dependent and controversial. There are established benefits in selected scenarios, including acute myocardial infarction, tachyarrhythmias, hypertensive emergencies, thyroid storm, and prevention of variceal bleeds. In contrast, evidence is limited or conflicting in septic shock, traumatic brain injury, acute heart failure, burns and other critical care syndromes. Concerns include impairment of compensatory cardiovascular responses, reduction of cardiac output, hypotension, and compromised organ perfusion. Furthermore, the safety and efficacy of ß-blockade appear to depend on the type and dose of ß-blocker, patient phenotype, timing of initiation, hemodynamic reserve, and whether therapy represents continuation of chronic treatment, withdrawal and re-initiation, or de novo initiation during acute illness. This review highlights major gaps in knowledge, including the absence of reliable indicators to identify patients most likely to benefit, uncertainty regarding optimal treatment targets and monitoring strategies, and limited randomised evidence in heterogeneous ICU populations. A phenotype-driven, physiology-guided approach that accounts for hemodynamic status, sympathetic spectrum and timing of ß-blocker therapy is likely required to optimise outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645558What 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.