Key result
IV milrinone tends to prolong hospitalization in ischemic HF but shorten it in nonischemic HF.
Why the study?
Heart failure etiology has prognostic and therapeutic implications, but its relationship to response to inotropic therapy is unknown.
Does intravenous milrinone improve outcomes in patients with decompensated heart failure based on ischemic versus nonischemic etiology?
Population
949 patients with systolic dysfunction and decompensated HF
Comparison
48 to 72 h of intravenous milrinone vs placebo, stratified by etiology
Design
Post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial
Follow-up
60 days
Authors
Loading...
Etiology may modify milrinone response in decompensated HF; challenges uniform inotrope use and leaves open etiology-specific trials.
RCT (n=949)
Does intravenous milrinone improve outcomes in patients with decompensated heart failure based on ischemic versus nonischemic etiology?
In decompensated heart failure, intravenous milrinone may be harmful in patients with ischemic etiology but potentially beneficial in those with nonischemic etiology.
Felker et al. (2003) conducted an RCT in Decompensated heart failure (n=949). Milrinone vs. Placebo was evaluated on Days hospitalized from cardiovascular causes within 60 days. Intravenous milrinone showed a bidirectional effect, tending to increase cardiovascular hospital days in ischemic HF (13.6 vs 12.4) but decrease them in nonischemic HF (10.9 vs 12.6).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: