Milrinone vs Dobutamine for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock is associated with poor clinical outcomes. There is a paucity of prospective data examining the efficacy and safety of inotropic therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock and renal dysfunction. This study sought to examine the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine in relation to renal function. In this post hoc analysis of the DOREMI (Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock) trial, we examined clinical outcomes with milrinone compared to dobutamine after stratification based on baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and acute kidney injury (AKI). The primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Baseline eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and AKI were observed in 78 (45%) and 124 (65%) of patients, respectively. The primary outcome and death from any cause occurred in 99 (52%) and 76 (40%) patients, respectively. eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 did not appear to modulate the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine. In contrast, there was a significant interaction between the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine and AKI with respect to the primary outcome (P interaction = 0.02) and death (P interaction = 0.04). The interaction was characterized by lower risk of primary outcome and death with milrinone compared to dobutamine in patients without, but not with, AKI. In patients requiring inotropic support for cardiogenic shock, baseline renal dysfunction and AKI are common. A modulating effect of AKI on the relative efficacy of milrinone compared to dobutamine was observed, characterized by attenuation of a potential clinical benefit with milrinone compared to dobutamine in patients who develop AKI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".