dopamine Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
, Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(4):551-556
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200092
, To analyze the clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine or epinephrine.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a pediatric emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Population: children admitted because of fluid-refractory septic shock. Clinical outcome was compared between two groups: Dopamine and Epinephrine. Variables evaluated were use of invasive mechanical ventilation, days of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, intensive care stay, and mortality. For numerical and categorical variables, we used measures of central tendency. They were compared by the Mann-Whitney U-test and the (2 test.
We included 118 patients. A total of 58.5% received dopamine and 41.5% received epinephrine. The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was 38.8% for epinephrine versus 40.6% for dopamine (p = 0.84), with a median of 4 days for the Epinephrine Group and 5.5 for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.104). Median time of inotropic therapy was 2 days for both groups (p = 0.714). Median hospital stay was 11 and 13 days for the Epinephrine and Dopamine groups, respectively (p = 0.554), and median stay in intensive care was 4 days (0 - 81 days) in both groups (p = 0.748). Mortality was 5% for the Epinephrine Group versus 9% for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.64).
At our center, no differences in use of invasive mechanical ventilation, time of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, or mortality were observed in children admitted to the pediatric emergency department with a diagnosis of fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine versus epinephrine.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(4):551-556
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200092
, To analyze the clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine or epinephrine.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a pediatric emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Population: children admitted because of fluid-refractory septic shock. Clinical outcome was compared between two groups: Dopamine and Epinephrine. Variables evaluated were use of invasive mechanical ventilation, days of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, intensive care stay, and mortality. For numerical and categorical variables, we used measures of central tendency. They were compared by the Mann-Whitney U-test and the (2 test.
We included 118 patients. A total of 58.5% received dopamine and 41.5% received epinephrine. The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was 38.8% for epinephrine versus 40.6% for dopamine (p = 0.84), with a median of 4 days for the Epinephrine Group and 5.5 for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.104). Median time of inotropic therapy was 2 days for both groups (p = 0.714). Median hospital stay was 11 and 13 days for the Epinephrine and Dopamine groups, respectively (p = 0.554), and median stay in intensive care was 4 days (0 - 81 days) in both groups (p = 0.748). Mortality was 5% for the Epinephrine Group versus 9% for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.64).
At our center, no differences in use of invasive mechanical ventilation, time of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, or mortality were observed in children admitted to the pediatric emergency department with a diagnosis of fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine versus epinephrine.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008;20(1):49-56
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2008000100008
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Norepinephrine and dopamine are used, in the state of shock, with the intention of offering hemodynamic support and to reestablish tissue perfusion. The pharmacological effects of these vasopressors can be diverse, for this reason, their use requires, through the clinician, an interpretation of the hemodynamic effects with observation of the systemic variations and region. With this in mind, the objective of this study was to analyze the publications regarding the effects of norepinephrine and low-dose dopamine in hepatosplenic perfusion and renal in treatment of septic shock. METHODS: Articles were selected (n = 27) concerning the use of norepinephrine and dopamine in septic shock, published during the period of 1997 to September 2007, revised in PubMed, data base of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The MESH method was utilized with the descriptors norepinephrine, dopamine and sepsis. RESULTS: The effects of dopamine and norepinephrine in kidney perfusion are similar; there is an increase in diuresis and no change in creatinine clearance. Norepinephrine did not affect kidney tissue perfusion in spite of the increase of vascular tone. Regarding the splancnic effects, these drugs showed an increase in blood flow, though redistributing the blood in this compartment. CONCLUSIONS: The best agent for the hemodynamic reestablishment that keeps the adequate regional perfusion remains inconclusive.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008;20(1):49-56
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2008000100008
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Norepinephrine and dopamine are used, in the state of shock, with the intention of offering hemodynamic support and to reestablish tissue perfusion. The pharmacological effects of these vasopressors can be diverse, for this reason, their use requires, through the clinician, an interpretation of the hemodynamic effects with observation of the systemic variations and region. With this in mind, the objective of this study was to analyze the publications regarding the effects of norepinephrine and low-dose dopamine in hepatosplenic perfusion and renal in treatment of septic shock. METHODS: Articles were selected (n = 27) concerning the use of norepinephrine and dopamine in septic shock, published during the period of 1997 to September 2007, revised in PubMed, data base of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The MESH method was utilized with the descriptors norepinephrine, dopamine and sepsis. RESULTS: The effects of dopamine and norepinephrine in kidney perfusion are similar; there is an increase in diuresis and no change in creatinine clearance. Norepinephrine did not affect kidney tissue perfusion in spite of the increase of vascular tone. Regarding the splancnic effects, these drugs showed an increase in blood flow, though redistributing the blood in this compartment. CONCLUSIONS: The best agent for the hemodynamic reestablishment that keeps the adequate regional perfusion remains inconclusive.
