Efficacy and safety of dobutamine versus milrinone in cardiogenic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Arga Setyo Adji, Rizka Kusuma Wardahni, Isnia Maulidah, Diski Saisa, Angela Puspita, Antonius Dwi Saputra, Aufa Baraja, Anne Mantofa, Intan Komalasari
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of dobutamine versus milrinone in cardiogenic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Arga Setyo Adji, Rizka Kusuma Wardahni, Isnia Maulidah, Diski Saisa, Angela Puspita, Antonius Dwi Saputra, Aufa Baraja, Anne Mantofa, Intan Komalasari","doi":"10.21542/gcsp.2026.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition requiring timely pharmacological support. Dobutamine and milrinone are commonly used inotropes, yet their comparative efficacy and safety in CS management remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes associated with dobutamine versus milrinone in CS patients. <b>Methods:</b> A thorough literature search was conducted across databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus, spanning publications up to February 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing dobutamine and milrinone in adult patients diagnosed with CS were incorporated. Statistical analyses were performed employing a random-effects model. Effect measures comprised odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI), with heterogeneity evaluated using <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> statistics. <b>Results:</b> Dobutamine was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.01-2.39; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 93%; <i>p</i> = 0.04), which was non-significant in RCTs (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.70-2.19; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>p</i> = 0.46; moderate certainty) but significant in observational studies (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02-2.59; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 94%; <i>p</i> = 0.04; very low certainty). Mortality was markedly increased in ICU settings (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.42-5.69; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 93%; <i>p</i> < 0.001; moderate certainty), whereas non-ICU settings showed no significant difference (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.45; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 84%; low certainty). Overall all-cause mortality was also higher with dobutamine (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 87%; <i>p</i> = 0.02), remaining non-significant in RCT data (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.73-2.32; moderate certainty) but significant in observational data (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 89%; low certainty). No significant differences were observed in ICU length of stay (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.73; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 93%) or hospital length of stay (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.11; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 98%), and significant arrhythmias were comparable (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40-1.93; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 76%). However, acute renal failure was significantly more frequent with dobutamine (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>p</i> = 0.03). <b>Conclusion:</b> Dobutamine is associated with increased mortality particularly in ICU patients and a higher risk of acute renal failure compared with milrinone, with evidence certainty ranging from moderate to very low and substantial heterogeneity across mortality outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12669,"journal":{"name":"Global Cardiology Science & Practice","volume":"2026 1","pages":"e202605"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13070272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Cardiology Science & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21542/gcsp.2026.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition requiring timely pharmacological support. Dobutamine and milrinone are commonly used inotropes, yet their comparative efficacy and safety in CS management remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes associated with dobutamine versus milrinone in CS patients. Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted across databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus, spanning publications up to February 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing dobutamine and milrinone in adult patients diagnosed with CS were incorporated. Statistical analyses were performed employing a random-effects model. Effect measures comprised odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI), with heterogeneity evaluated using I 2 statistics. Results: Dobutamine was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.01-2.39; I 2 = 93%; p = 0.04), which was non-significant in RCTs (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.70-2.19; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.46; moderate certainty) but significant in observational studies (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02-2.59; I 2 = 94%; p = 0.04; very low certainty). Mortality was markedly increased in ICU settings (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.42-5.69; I 2 = 93%; p < 0.001; moderate certainty), whereas non-ICU settings showed no significant difference (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.45; I 2 = 84%; low certainty). Overall all-cause mortality was also higher with dobutamine (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; I 2 = 87%; p = 0.02), remaining non-significant in RCT data (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.73-2.32; moderate certainty) but significant in observational data (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35; I 2 = 89%; low certainty). No significant differences were observed in ICU length of stay (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.73; I 2 = 93%) or hospital length of stay (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.11; I 2 = 98%), and significant arrhythmias were comparable (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40-1.93; I 2 = 76%). However, acute renal failure was significantly more frequent with dobutamine (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.03). Conclusion: Dobutamine is associated with increased mortality particularly in ICU patients and a higher risk of acute renal failure compared with milrinone, with evidence certainty ranging from moderate to very low and substantial heterogeneity across mortality outcomes.

多巴酚丁胺与米力酮治疗心源性休克的疗效和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:心源性休克(CS)是一种危及生命的疾病,需要及时的药物支持。多巴酚丁胺和米力酮是常用的肌力药物,但它们在CS治疗中的相对疗效和安全性仍不确定。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估多巴酚丁胺与米力酮在CS患者中的相关结果。方法:对MEDLINE(通过PubMed)、CENTRAL (Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials)和Scopus等数据库进行全面的文献检索,涵盖截至2025年2月的出版物。随机对照试验和观察性研究比较多巴酚丁胺和米力酮在诊断为CS的成人患者中的作用。采用随机效应模型进行统计分析。效果测量包括二元结果的优势比(OR)和连续结果的标准化平均差异(SMD),并伴有95%置信区间(CI),使用i2统计评估异质性。结果:多巴酚丁胺与较高的住院死亡率相关(OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.01-2.39; I 2 = 93%; p = 0.04),这在随机对照试验中不显著(OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.70-2.19; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.46;中等确定性),但在观察性研究中显著(OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02-2.59; I 2 = 94%; p = 0.04;极低确定性)。ICU环境的死亡率显著增加(OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.42-5.69; i2 = 93%; p < 0.001;中等确定性),而非ICU环境的死亡率无显著差异(OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.45; i2 = 84%;低确定性)。多巴酚丁胺的总全因死亡率也较高(OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.21; I 2 = 87%; p = 0.02),在RCT数据中仍无统计学意义(OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.73-2.32;中等确定性),但在观察数据中有统计学意义(OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35; I 2 = 89%;低确定性)。ICU住院时间(SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.99 ~ 0.73; i2 = 93%)或住院时间(SMD -0.69, 95% CI -4.49 ~ 3.11; i2 = 98%)无显著差异,显著性心律不全具有可比性(or 0.88, 95% CI 0.40 ~ 1.93; i2 = 76%)。然而,多巴酚丁胺组的急性肾功能衰竭发生率明显更高(OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.03)。结论:与米力农相比,多巴酚丁胺与死亡率增加有关,特别是在ICU患者中,与急性肾衰竭风险增加有关,证据确定性从中等到非常低,死亡率结果存在很大的异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Cardiology Science & Practice
Global Cardiology Science & Practice Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书