Comparative Efficacy of Noradrenaline vs. Other Vasopressors on Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock ― A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Because the optimal choice of vasopressor for the initial treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether noradrenaline improves clinical outcomes compared with other vasopressors (adrenaline, dopamine, and vasopressin) in patients with CS. Methods and Results: PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing noradrenaline with other vasopressors in adults with CS. A meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effect models where appropriate. Two RCTs were included (n=337). One trial enrolled 57 patients and compared the effects of noradrenaline and adrenaline. Another study included 280 patients with CS as a subgroup and compared noradrenaline with dopamine. Pooled analysis showed that noradrenaline likely reduced the 28-day mortality rate compared with other vasopressors (very-low certainty). This corresponded to approximately 110 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval: 217 fewer to 5 fewer). Secondary outcomes from the Levy study indicated fewer adverse events in the noradrenaline group. Conclusions: Noradrenaline likely reduces the 28-day mortality rate compared with other vasopressors (very-low certainty) in CS. Given the small number of studies and the potential bias, further large-scale trials are warranted.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparative Efficacy of Noradrenaline vs. Other Vasopressors on Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock ― A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―
- Date Crossref
- 10/12/2025
- Éditeur
- Japanese Circulation Society
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.