Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock.
Adrenergic beta-Agonists
/ therapeutic use
Aged
Cardiotonic Agents
/ adverse effects
Comorbidity
Dobutamine
/ adverse effects
Double-Blind Method
Female
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Milrinone
/ adverse effects
Phosphodiesterase 3 Inhibitors
/ therapeutic use
Shock, Cardiogenic
/ drug therapy
Journal
The New England journal of medicine
ISSN: 1533-4406
Titre abrégé: N Engl J Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0255562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 08 2021
05 08 2021
Historique:
entrez:
4
8
2021
pubmed:
5
8
2021
medline:
21
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for cardiogenic shock, little evidence exists to guide the selection of inotropic agents in clinical practice. We randomly assigned patients with cardiogenic shock to receive milrinone or dobutamine in a double-blind fashion. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke diagnosed by a neurologist, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite outcome. A total of 192 participants (96 in each group) were enrolled. The treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to the primary outcome; a primary outcome event occurred in 47 participants (49%) in the milrinone group and in 52 participants (54%) in the dobutamine group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.19; P = 0.47). There were also no significant differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes, including in-hospital death (37% and 43% of the participants, respectively; relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.21), resuscitated cardiac arrest (7% and 9%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.07), receipt of mechanical circulatory support (12% and 15%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.71), or initiation of renal replacement therapy (22% and 17%; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67). In patients with cardiogenic shock, no significant difference between milrinone and dobutamine was found with respect to the primary composite outcome or important secondary outcomes. (Funded by the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03207165.).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for cardiogenic shock, little evidence exists to guide the selection of inotropic agents in clinical practice.
METHODS
We randomly assigned patients with cardiogenic shock to receive milrinone or dobutamine in a double-blind fashion. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke diagnosed by a neurologist, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite outcome.
RESULTS
A total of 192 participants (96 in each group) were enrolled. The treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to the primary outcome; a primary outcome event occurred in 47 participants (49%) in the milrinone group and in 52 participants (54%) in the dobutamine group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.19; P = 0.47). There were also no significant differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes, including in-hospital death (37% and 43% of the participants, respectively; relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.21), resuscitated cardiac arrest (7% and 9%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.07), receipt of mechanical circulatory support (12% and 15%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.71), or initiation of renal replacement therapy (22% and 17%; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with cardiogenic shock, no significant difference between milrinone and dobutamine was found with respect to the primary composite outcome or important secondary outcomes. (Funded by the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03207165.).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34347952
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026845
doi:
Substances chimiques
Adrenergic beta-Agonists
0
Cardiotonic Agents
0
Phosphodiesterase 3 Inhibitors
0
Dobutamine
3S12J47372
Milrinone
JU9YAX04C7
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03207165']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
516-525Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.