PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15266497

Vasopressors for shock.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Besides reversing the underlying cause, the first line treatment for the symptoms of shock is usually the administration of intravenous fluids. If this method is not successful, vasopressors such as dopamine, dobutamine, adrenaline, noradrenaline and vasopressin are recommended. It is unclear if there is a vasopressor of choice, either for the treatment of particular forms of shock or for the treatment of shock in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of vasopressors for circulatory shock in critically ill patients. Our main aim was to assess whether particular vasopressors reduce overall mortality. We also intended to identify whether the choice of vasopressor influences outcomes such as length-of-stay in the intensive care unit and health-related quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and PsychINFO:all from inception to November 2003; for randomized controlled trials. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing various vasopressors, vasopressors with placebo or vasopressors with intravenous fluids for the treatment of any kind of circulatory failure (shock). Mortality was the main outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers abstracted data independently. Disagreement between two reviewers was discussed and resolved with a third reviewer. We used random effects models for combining quantitative data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomized controlled trials. Reporting of methodological details was for many items not satisfactory: only two studies reported allocation concealment, and two that the outcome assessor was blind to the intervention. Two studies compared norepinephrine plus dobutamine with epinephrine alone in patients with septic shock (52 patients, relative risk of death 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.67). Three studies compared norepinephrine with dopamine in patients with septic shock (62 patients, relative risk 0.88, 0.57 to 1.36). Two studies compared vasopressin with placebo in patients with septic shock (58 patients, relative risk 1.04, 0.06 to 19.33). One study compared terlipressin with norepinephrine in patients with refractory hypotension after general anaesthesia but there were no deaths (20 patients). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The current available evidence is not suited to inform clinical practice. We were unable to determine whether a particular vasopressor is superior to other agents in the treatment of states of shock.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Müllner, B Urbanek, C Havel, H Losert, F Waechter, G Gamper. 2004. Vasopressors for shock.. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003709.pub2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Global Genomic Surveillance.

Global genomic surveillance has emerged as a foundational pillar of public health in the twenty-first century, enabling real-time tracking of pathogen evolution and informing outbreak response. This chapter examines the strategic architecture of global genomic surveillance, focusing on its application to arboviruses such as chikungunya virus (CHIKV). It explores the integration of genomic data with epidemiological, clinical, and environmental information within a One Health framework, while addressing critical challenges in governance, equity, and interoperability. The discussion covers the entire genomic surveillance workflow, from sample collection and sequencing to bioinformatic analysis and phylogenetic inference, and highlights the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in predictive surveillance. By analyzing global initiatives, operational barriers, and emerging technologies, this chapter underscores the necessity of sustainable, equitable, and interoperable genomic systems to proactively address current and future infectious disease threats.

Humans↗

Systematic Dissection of Key Driver Perturbation Signatures in Single Cells via ECCITE-seq.

CRISPR screens, such as expanded CRISPR-compatible cellular indexing of transcriptomes and epitopes by sequencing (ECCITE-seq), enable the simultaneous measurement of transcriptomes, gRNA identity, and cell-surface protein expression at single-cell resolution to systematically interrogate gene function. This platform provides a powerful and scalable experimental approach for validating disease-associated regulators identified by large-scale association studies and other computational methods, including network-based analyses of multi-omics data. Here, as an example application, we describe an ECCITE-seq framework to characterize the transcriptomic consequences of perturbing multiple neuronal key driver genes associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived neurons. More broadly, by integrating customized pooled gRNA libraries with different CRISPR effectors across multiple cell types, this approach allows for the assessment of the regulatory impact of candidate genes implicated in development and disease processes.

Humans↗

Identification of Genome-Wide Chromatin Structural Aberration in Cancer by Hi-C Analysis.

Aberrant three-dimensional genome organization is a hallmark of cancer, often driving oncogene activation through mechanisms such as enhancer hijacking. High-throughput chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) maps these interactions on a genome-wide scale. Unlike earlier dilution-based methods, in situ Hi-C performs proximity ligation within intact nuclei, minimizing random ligation noise and enabling fine-scale structure detection. This chapter describes an optimized in situ Hi-C protocol tailored for cancer cell lines using MboI digestion and biotin-mediated pull-down to generate high-complexity libraries. We further outline a computational workflow that extends beyond standard topological mapping of compartments and topologically associating domains to identify cancer-specific aberrations. Specifically, we focus on detecting chromosomal rearrangements (structural variants) and characterizing the distinct circular topology of extrachromosomal DNA. This integrated experimental and analytical framework provides the necessary tools to dissect the spatial dysregulation underlying tumor evolution.

Humans↗