Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes of Milrinone Compared to Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: A-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

W. Bahagia
{"title":"Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes of Milrinone Compared to Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: A-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"W. Bahagia","doi":"10.30701/ijc.1296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background \nDespite years of clinical experience with the two most commonly used inotropes i.e dobutamine and milrinone, in the cardiogenic shock setting, there is a lack of head-to-head comparison between inotropes in cardiogenic shock. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of hemodynamic and clinical effects of dobutamine and milrinone in cardiogenic shock. \nMethods \nA comprehensive literature search using PubMed and Scopus was performed. Among 40 studies retrieved from the database, 3 studies were included for hemodynamic comparison outcome and 2 studies for clinical outcomes. \nResults \nThree studies with 101 patients were included for hemodynamic analysis and two studies with 146 patients for clinical analysis. We observed no significant difference between cardiac index, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and mean arterial pressure at 1 hour after milrinone and dobutamine administration. However, there is significantly lower mPAP after milrinone infusion compared to dobutamine (mean difference -8,7 (-9,97 to -7,43) mmHg, p<0,01). We also observed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality but significantly shorter ICU length of stay in the milrinone group (mean difference -1 (-1,92 to -0,08) days). \nConclusion \nAdministration of milrinone resulted in lower PA pressure and shorter ICU LOS compared to dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock.","PeriodicalId":32916,"journal":{"name":"Majalah Kardiologi Indonesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Majalah Kardiologi Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30701/ijc.1296","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 Despite years of clinical experience with the two most commonly used inotropes i.e dobutamine and milrinone, in the cardiogenic shock setting, there is a lack of head-to-head comparison between inotropes in cardiogenic shock. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of hemodynamic and clinical effects of dobutamine and milrinone in cardiogenic shock. Methods A comprehensive literature search using PubMed and Scopus was performed. Among 40 studies retrieved from the database, 3 studies were included for hemodynamic comparison outcome and 2 studies for clinical outcomes. Results Three studies with 101 patients were included for hemodynamic analysis and two studies with 146 patients for clinical analysis. We observed no significant difference between cardiac index, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and mean arterial pressure at 1 hour after milrinone and dobutamine administration. However, there is significantly lower mPAP after milrinone infusion compared to dobutamine (mean difference -8,7 (-9,97 to -7,43) mmHg, p<0,01). We also observed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality but significantly shorter ICU length of stay in the milrinone group (mean difference -1 (-1,92 to -0,08) days). Conclusion Administration of milrinone resulted in lower PA pressure and shorter ICU LOS compared to dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock.
米力农与多巴酚丁胺在心源性休克中的血流动力学和临床结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景尽管对两种最常用的止痛药(即多巴酚丁胺和米力农)有多年的临床经验,但在心源性休克的情况下,对心源性休克中的止痛药缺乏正面比较。我们对多巴酚丁胺和米力农治疗心源性休克的血液动力学和临床效果进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法采用PubMed和Scopus进行文献检索。从数据库中检索到的40项研究中,包括3项血液动力学比较结果研究和2项临床结果研究。结果纳入了3项研究,共101名患者进行血液动力学分析,2项研究共146名患者进行临床分析。在米力农和多巴酚丁胺给药后1小时,我们观察到心脏指数、肺毛细血管楔压和平均动脉压之间没有显著差异。然而,与多巴酚丁胺相比,米力农输注后mPAP显著降低(平均差异-8,7(-9.97至-7.43)mmHg,p<0.01)。我们还观察到,米力农组的住院死亡率没有显著差异,但ICU住院时间明显缩短(平均差异-1(-1.92至-0.08)天)。结论与多巴酚丁胺相比,米力农可降低心源性休克患者的PA压力,缩短ICU住院时间。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信