Key result
Milrinone and dobutamine resulted in a similar median time to resolution of cardiogenic shock (24 hours in both groups, P=0.75), but dobutamine caused more arrhythmias (62.9% vs 32.8%, P<0.01).
Why the study?
Does milrinone compared to dobutamine improve time to resolution of cardiogenic shock in adult patients with cardiogenic shock?
Population
100 adult patients with cardiogenic shock regardless of etiology who did not receive mechanical circulatory…
Comparison
Milrinone as initial inotrope therapy. vs Dobutamine as initial inotrope therapy.
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Similar efficacy may guide inotrope choice by arrhythmia risk; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Observational (n=100)
Does milrinone compared to dobutamine improve time to resolution of cardiogenic shock in adult patients with cardiogenic shock?
Absolute Event Rate: 24% vs 24%
p-value: p=.75
Milrinone and dobutamine demonstrate similar effectiveness for the initial management of cardiogenic shock, but their use is associated with different adverse event profiles that may guide therapy selection.
Lewis et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Cardiogenic shock (n=100). Milrinone vs. Dobutamine was evaluated on time to resolution of cardiogenic shock (median hours) (p=.75). Milrinone and dobutamine resulted in a similar median time to resolution of cardiogenic shock (24 hours in both groups, P=0.75), but dobutamine caused more arrhythmias (62.9% vs 32.8%, P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: