ArticleJHLT open2026
Vaso-active inotropic scores: Clinical value, pros and cons.
Article in JHLT open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVasoactive-inotropic scores (VIS) are used as predictors of outcome in pediatric and adult patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing cardiac surgery. VIS is calculated by combining the doses of vasoactive and inotropic drugs using weighted formulas. However, similar VIS values may reflect different hemodynamic states such as cardiogenic shock, vasoplegic shock, or mixed shock. This review summarizes the current literature to further evaluate its clinical utility, and its strengths and limitations.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed with keywords "vasoactive" and "inotropic score". We included English-language human studies with full text availability. Extracted data included VIS formulas, publication year, study population, patient characteristics, timing of VIS assessment, cut-off values, and clinical outcomes.
resultsNinety-two studies evaluating VIS were identified and 16 different inotropic scores were identified. We divided the groups of patients who needed vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs support for vasoplegia, cardiac dysfunction, or mixed shock states. There was a wide variation in the timing of VIS assessment (pre-operative to 72 h after surgery), and in the VIS cut-off values, limiting the comparison between studies. Moreover, orally administered or intravenous bolus medications were not taken into account.
conclusionVIS is an easy bedside tool that has been shown to be associated with clinical outcomes. However, current formulas do not consider dose-dependent actions of inotropes or vasopressors, other medications used, and the etiology of the support. There is also substantial heterogeneity in the timing of VIS calculation and cut-off values over different patient populations.
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.