Why the study?
To discuss the use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock.
Do vasopressors and inotropes improve tissue perfusion and outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Do vasopressors and inotropes improve tissue perfusion and outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock?
This review reinforces current guidelines recommending norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor and dobutamine as the first-line inotrope for the management of cardiogenic shock.
Supports guideline use of norepinephrine and dobutamine in cardiogenic shock; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock. RECENT FINDINGS: The classic form or cardiogenic shock requires administration of inotropic and/or vasopressor agents to try to improve the impaired tissue perfusion. Among vasopressors various alpha-adrenergic agents, vasopressin derivatives and angiotensin can be used. The first-line therapy remains norepinephrine as it is associated with minimal adverse effects and appears to be associated by the best outcome in network meta-analyses. On the contrary, epinephrine is associated with an increased incidence of refractory shock and observational studies suggest an increased risk of death. Vasopressin may be an excellent alternative in tachycardiac patients or in the presence of pulmonary hypertension. Concerning inotropic agents, dobutamine is the first-line agent but levosimendan is an excellent alternative or additional agent in cases not responding to dobutamine. The impact on outcome of inotropic agents remains controversial. SUMMARY: Recent studies have refined the position of the various vasopressor and inotropic agents. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor agent by various guidelines. Among inotropic agents, selection between the agents should be individualized and based on the hemodynamic response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Backer et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: