ReviewCritical care explorations2023
Efficacy of Milrinone and Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock: Real-World Outcomes.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of dobutamine versus milrinone in cardiogenic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Global cardiology science & practice · 2026Article
- Transesophageal echocardiography-guided anesthetic management of a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy, severe heart failure, and septic shock: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Milrinone versus dobutamine in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock; a propensity score matched analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Managing Arrhythmias in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights Into Milrinone and Dobutamine Therapy.Cureus · 2024Review
- Dobutamine in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39;
conclusionsOnly limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.