Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine as the Initial Vasoactive Agent in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial for Recruitment Rates and Protocol Adherence, the Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine in Pediatric Septic Shock Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Pediatric guidelines recommend initial resuscitation of septic shock using either epinephrine or norepinephrine as first-line support. However, there are no trials comparing these two agents. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial was to test the feasibility of a study protocol, specifically in terms of recruitment rates and protocol adherence, comparing epinephrine and norepinephrine as first-line vasoactive agents in pediatric septic shock. Patients and methods: A double-blinded, randomized controlled single-center study was conducted in the Emergency Medicine Department (ED) and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at a tertiary referral hospital in India. Thirty children aged between 1 month and 17 years with suspected septic shock, in whom signs of shock persisted after the initial fluid bolus, were recruited. Participants were randomized: 1:1 to receive either epinephrine or norepinephrine (each 15), initiated at 0.05-0.1 µg/kg/min. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rates, randomization to study-drug initiation time, and adherence to protocol. Exploratory clinical outcomes included proportion of shock resolution, adverse events, and hospital mortality. Results: Of 44 screened patients, 10 met exclusion criteria and 4 declined consents, with a recruitment rate of 3.2 patients/month. The median time to vasoactive initiation after randomization was 12 minutes (IQR 8-15). The median time for shock resolution was 31 hours (IQR 10.8-51.2) and 14 hours (IQR 11.5-16.5) in the epinephrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively. Adverse events meeting pre-determined stopping criteria occurred in 7/16 and 1/15 in the epinephrine and norepinephrine groups, respectively. One patient in each group died. Conclusions: A protocol randomizing children with septic shock to epinephrine vs norepinephrine was feasible in terms of protocol adherence and recruitment rates. These findings can inform the design of a definitive multicenter trial powered for patient-centered endpoints. How to cite this article: . Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine as the Initial Vasoactive Agent in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial for Recruitment Rates and Protocol Adherence, the Epinephrine vs Norepinephrine in Pediatric Septic Shock Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(9):737-745.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".