ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Response to Dobutamine in Septic Shock With Myocardial Dysfunction: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stop Predicting, Start Testing: A Dynamic Approach for Using Dobutamine in Septic Shock.Critical care explorations · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceDobutamine is recommended for septic shock with myocardial dysfunction and persistent hypoperfusion despite preload and mean arterial pressure optimization; however, supporting evidence is limited, and predictors of response remain unclear.
objectivesTo determine whether early hemodynamic responsiveness to dobutamine is associated with clinical outcomes and whether baseline echocardiographic parameters identify responders. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsSingle-center retrospective cohort study at a quaternary academic medical center. Adults with septic shock who received concomitant dobutamine with vasopressor therapy and underwent transthoracic echocardiography within 12 hours before dobutamine initiation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hemodynamic responsiveness was defined as the combination of an increase in central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) of at least five percentage points and a reduction in norepinephrine-equivalent (NEE) dose measured at 2 hours after dobutamine initiation. The primary outcome was 28-day ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU-free days and renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement.
resultsOf 104 patients, 37 (36%) met the composite definition of hemodynamic response. Baseline demographics, illness severity, lactate, and baseline vasopressor dose were similar between groups. Beyond the 2-hour window used to define response, separation persisted at 6 hours: responders showed a greater reduction in NEE dose (ΔNEE, -0.13 vs. 0.04 µg/kg/min; p < 0.001) and a higher MAP/NEE ratio (380 vs. 166; p = 0.003), and a greater increase in ScvO2 (+12% vs. +6%; p = 0.014). 28-day ICU mortality was 41% in responders and 58% in nonresponders (p = 0.13); after multivariable adjustment, hemodynamic response was associated with lower 28-day ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.68; p = 0.018). Responders had more ICU-free days (17 [0-22] vs. 0 [0-15]; p = 0.017); RRT requirement did not differ (43% vs. 37%; p = 0.7). No baseline echocardiographic parameter was associated with hemodynamic responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In septic shock with myocardial dysfunction, early hemodynamic responsiveness to dobutamine identified a subgroup with a more favorable clinical trajectory. Resting echocardiographic parameters did not identify responders. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require prospective confirmation.
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.