Ramirez, F. Daniel

OBJECTIVES: Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02–1.39; p = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference –1.85 d; 95% CI –3.62 to –0.09; p = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.

AbstractAimsCardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of low cardiac output resulting in end-organ hypoperfusion. Despite high in-hospital mortality rates, little evidence exists regarding the optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) target in CS. We therefore evaluated the relationship between achieved MAP and clinical outcomes in patients with CS.Methods and resultsWe performed a post hoc analysis of the CAPITAL DOREMI trial: a randomized, double-blind trial comparing dobutamine to milrinone in patients with CS. We divided patients into a high MAP group (average MAP ≥ 70 mmHg over the 36 h following randomization), and a low MAP group (average MAP < 70 mmHg). Our primary outcome included in-hospital all-cause mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, need for cardiac transplantation or mechanical circulatory support, non-fatal myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attack or stroke, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. In total, 71 (37.0%) patients achieved an average MAP < 70 mmHg, and 121 (63.0%) achieved an average MAP ≥ 70 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 48 (67.6%) patients in the low MAP group and 51 (42.2%) patients in the high MAP group [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.92; P = 0.01]. All-cause mortality occurred in 41 (57.8%) and 35 (28.9%) patients in the low and high MAP groups, respectively (aRR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40–0.79; P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes between each group.ConclusionsIn patients with CS treated with inotrope therapy, low MAP is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Randomized data evaluating optimal MAP targets in CS is needed to guide medical therapy.

Adenosine boasts promising preclinical and clinical data supporting a vital role in modulating vascular homeostasis. Its widespread use as a diagnostic and therapeutic agent have been limited by its short half‐life and complex biology, though adenosine‐modulators have shown promise in improving vascular healing. Moreover, circulating adenosine has shown promise in predicting cardiovascular (CV) events. We sought to delineate whether circulating plasma adenosine levels predict CV events in patients undergoing invasive assessment for coronary artery disease. Patients undergoing invasive angiography had clinical data prospectively recorded in the Cardiovascular and Percutaneous ClInical TriALs (CAPITAL) revascularization registry and blood samples collected in the CAPITAL Biobank from which adenosine levels were quantified. Tertile‐based analysis was used to assess prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, and cerebrovascular accident). Secondary analyses included MACE subgroups, clinical subgroups and adenosine levels. There were 1,815 patients undergoing angiography who had blood collected with adenosine quantified in 1,323. Of those quantified, 51.0% were revascularized and 7.3% experienced MACE in 12 months of follow‐up. Tertile‐based analysis failed to demonstrate any stratification of MACE rates (log rank, P = 0.83), when comparing low‐to‐middle (hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.78, P = 0.70) or low‐to‐high adenosine tertiles (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.56–1.57, P = 0.84). In adjusted analysis, adenosine similarly failed to predict MACE. Finally, adenosine did not predict outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome nor in those revascularized or treated medically. Plasma adenosine levels do not predict subsequent CV outcomes or aid in patient risk stratification.