PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

A comparison of epinephrine and norepinephrine in critically ill patients

Intensive Care Medicine, ISSN: 0342-4642, Vol: 34, Issue: 12, Page: 2226-2234
2008
  • 305
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 413
    Captures
  • 5
    Mentions
  • 2
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Citations
    305
    • Citation Indexes
      281
    • Policy Citations
      18
      • Policy Citation
        18
    • Clinical Citations
      5
      • PubMed Guidelines
        5
    • Patent Family Citations
      1
      • Patent Families
        1
  • Captures
    413
  • Mentions
    5
    • Blog Mentions
      3
      • Blog
        3
    • References
      2
      • Wikipedia
        2
  • Social Media
    2
    • Shares, Likes & Comments
      2
      • Facebook
        2

Most Recent Blog

PulmCrit- Six myths promoted by the new surviving sepsis guidelines

Early Goal-Directed Therapy:  A house collapsing in slow motion This is basically the NINDS trial of the critical care world: a study with ~300 patients showing implausibly positive results, published in NEJM, and rapidly brainwashing an entire discipline. Rivers had major conflicts of interest, including patenting a catheter to monitor svcO2. The Rivers trial and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign pop

Article Description

Objective: To determine whether there was a difference between epinephrine and norepinephrine in achieving a mean arterial pressure (MAP) goal in intensive care (ICU) patients. Design: Prospective, double-blind, randomisedcontrolled trial. Setting: Four Australian university-affiliated multidisciplinary ICUs. Patients and participants: Patients who required vasopressors for any cause at randomisation. Patients with septic shock and acute circulatory failure were analysed separately. Interventions: Blinded infusions of epinephrine or norepinephrine to achieve a MAP ≥70 mmHg for the duration of ICU admission. Measurements: Primary outcome was achievement of MAP goal >24 h without vasopressors. Secondary outcomes were 28 and 90-day mortality. Two hundred and eighty patients were randomised to receive either epinephrine or norepinephrine. Median time to achieve the MAP goal was 35.1 h (interquartile range (IQR) 13.8-70.4 h) with epinephrine compared to 40.0 h (IQR 14.5-120 h) with norepinephrine (relative risk (RR) 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.12; P = 0.26). There was no difference in the time to achieve MAP goals in the subgroups of patients with severe sepsis (n = 158; RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.59-1.12; P = 0.18) or those with acute circulatory failure (n = 192; RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.27; P = 0.49) between epinephrine and norepinephrine. Epinephrine was associated with the development of significant but transient metabolic effects that prompted the withdrawal of 18/139 (12.9%) patients from the study by attending clinicians. There was no difference in 28 and 90-day mortality. Conclusions: Despite the development of potential drug-related effects with epinephrine, there was no difference in the achievement of a MAP goal between epinephrine and norepinephrine in a heterogenous population of ICU patients. © Springer-Verlag 2008.

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know