ArticlePloS one2025
Low systemic vascular resistance with normal blood pressure: Do we need vasopressors?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVasoplegia is defined by systemic vascular resistance (SVR) < 800 dynes·s/cm5, cardiac index (CI) > 2.2 L/min/m2, and hypotension, and is associated with poor outcomes. Maintaining adequate blood pressure with vasopressors is considered essential in these cases. However, some patients exhibit low SVR and high CI while maintaining normal blood pressure, and the benefits of vasopressor use in this population have not been studied.
methodsThis study utilized the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) database and included intensive care unit (ICU) patients who met the criteria for vasoplegic status, defined as SVR < 800 dynes·s/cm5, CI > 2.2 L/min/m2, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 60 mmHg. The primary outcome was kidney deterioration, and the secondary outcome was prolonged ICU stay (defined as > 3 days). Firth's logistic regression was used to analyze associations. Subgroup analyses and interaction term p-values were also assessed to evaluate the modifying effects of relevant variables on the relationship between vasopressor use and the outcomes.
resultsAmong 319 patients, 6.0% experienced kidney deterioration, and 24.1% had a prolonged ICU stay. Vasopressor use was not significantly associated with kidney deterioration (odds ratio [OR]: 2.96 [0.33-29.81], p = 0.321); however, it was significantly associated with prolonged ICU stay (OR: 4.71 [2.15-10.77], p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings across vasopressor types. Subgroup analysis showed that vasopressor use was associated with a higher risk of prolonged ICU stay in patients without congestive heart failure, without heart surgery, and without chronic kidney disease.
conclusionsIn patients with low SVR and normal blood pressure, vasopressor use was associated with longer ICU stays but not kidney protection.
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.