Efficacy of milrinone and dobutamine in low cardiac output states: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients in cardiac intensive care units (ICU) are admitted with increasingly higher disease acuity and a larger burden of non-cardiac critical illness. Accordingly, positive inotropes are being used with increased frequency and little comparative data to support drug selection. We compared the effectiveness and safety of dobutamine and milrinone in low cardiac output states (LCOS) and/or cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: We performed a systematic review comparing dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause mortality, length of stay in the ICU (LOS-ICU), length of stay in hospital (LOS-H) and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients with LCOS and/or CS. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies that meet eligibility requirements and which were published between 2001 and 2016 and included 23,056 patients. Only one randomized clinical trial was identified, with the remaining studies comprising observational cohort studies. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, trended towards a benefit with milrinone but did not meet pre-specified significance (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.29, p=0.06). While LOS-ICU (mean difference -0.72, 95% CI -1.10- -0.34, p=0.0002) was shorter with dobutamine, there was no difference in LOS-H (mean difference -1.22, 95% CI -4.68 - 2.24, p=0.49). Significant arrhythmias, specifically symptomatic and/or requiring antiarrhythmic therapy, were no different between the groups (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.85-3.76, p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Currently available data comparing milrinone to dobutamine in patients requiring inotropic support is limited. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter LOS in the ICU, with a worrisome signal of increased risk of allcause mortality. Randomized data are needed to guide inotrope selection in patients with LCOS and/or CS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".