ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Current and future strategies aiming at reducing catecholamine exposure in septic shock.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor in septic shock, yet prolonged catecholamine exposure is associated with adverse effects that have prompted growing interest in catecholamine-sparing strategies. This review highlights current evidence on the rationale for catecholamine use, the burden of sustained adrenergic exposure, and current and emerging sparing strategies. Early norepinephrine initiation, including via peripheral access, shortens hypotension duration and reduces fluid requirements. However, catecholamine exposure can carry dose-dependent cardiac, metabolic, and immunological consequences. Perfusion-guided strategies, including individualization of blood pressure targets and titration of vasopressor use based on capillary refill time, represent the cornerstone of reduction of catecholamines. Among alternative non-adrenergic vasopressors, vasopressin reduces catecholamine exposure and the risk of atrial fibrillation, with potential renal benefits. Angiotensin II represents an option in catecholamine-refractory shock, with post-hoc evidence suggesting benefit in patients with acute kidney injury or elevated renin concentrations. Inhibition of circulating dipeptidyl peptidase 3, which degrades angiotensin II, is an emerging therapeutic strategy. Corticosteroids restore vasopressor sensitivity and accelerate catecholamine weaning. Short-acting β1-blockers have shown hemodynamic promise but inconsistent outcomes, underscoring the need for better patient selection. Methylene blue, targeting the vasodilatory nitric oxide pathway, represents another strategy. Finally, emerging immunomodulatory approaches, including extracellular histone neutralization and polymyxin B hemoperfusion in endotoxin phenotypes, aim to attenuate the dysregulated host response driving vasopressor dependency. A personalized and multimodal approach, including perfusion-guided targets, non-adrenergic vasopressors, and phenotype-based patient selection, represents the most promising strategy to reduce potential consequences of adrenergic burden while maintaining tissue perfusion.
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.