Dopamine versus norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock: a meta-analysis*
- PMID: 22036860
- DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823778ee
Dopamine versus norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock: a meta-analysis*
Abstract
Objectives: There has long-been controversy about the possible superiority of norepinephrine compared to dopamine in the treatment of shock. The objective was to evaluate the effects of norepinephrine and dopamine on outcome and adverse events in patients with septic shock.
Data sources: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases, and of Google Scholar, up to June 30, 2011.
Study selection and data extraction: All studies providing information on the outcome of patients with septic shock treated with dopamine compared to norepinephrine were included. Observational and randomized trials were analyzed separately. Because time of outcome assessment varied among trials, we evaluated 28-day mortality or closest estimate. Heterogeneity among trials was assessed using the Cochrane Q homogeneity test. A Forest plot was constructed and the aggregate relative risk of death was computed. Potential publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.
Methods and main results: We retrieved five observational (1,360 patients) and six randomized (1,408 patients) trials, totaling 2,768 patients (1,474 who received norepinephrine and 1,294 who received dopamine). In observational studies, among which there was significant heterogeneity (p < .001), there was no difference in mortality (relative risk, 1.09; confidence interval, 0.84-1.41; p = .72). A sensitivity analysis identified one trial as being responsible for the heterogeneity; after exclusion of that trial, no heterogeneity was observed and dopamine administration was associated with an increased risk of death (relative risk, 1.23; confidence interval, 1.05-1.43; p < .01). In randomized trials, for which no heterogeneity or publication bias was detected (p = .77), dopamine was associated with an increased risk of death (relative risk, 1.12; confidence interval, 1.01-1.20; p = .035). In the two trials that reported arrhythmias, these were more frequent with dopamine than with norepinephrine (relative risk, 2.34; confidence interval, 1.46-3.77; p = .001).
Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, dopamine administration is associated with greater mortality and a higher incidence of arrhythmic events compared to norepinephrine administration.
Comment in
-
Physicians no longer should consider dopamine for septic shock!*.Crit Care Med. 2012 Mar;40(3):981. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823d779b. Crit Care Med. 2012. PMID: 22343841 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Norepinephrine or dopamine for septic shock: systematic review of randomized clinical trials.J Intensive Care Med. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):172-8. doi: 10.1177/0885066610396312. Epub 2011 Mar 24. J Intensive Care Med. 2012. PMID: 21436167 Review.
-
Physicians no longer should consider dopamine for septic shock!*.Crit Care Med. 2012 Mar;40(3):981. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823d779b. Crit Care Med. 2012. PMID: 22343841 No abstract available.
-
Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6;24(1):488. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03204-x. Crit Care. 2020. PMID: 32762765 Free PMC article.
-
[Effectiveness of norepinephrine versus dopamine for septic shock: a meta analysis].Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2013 Aug;25(8):449-54. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2013. PMID: 24021037 Chinese.
-
Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PLoS One. 2015 Aug 3;10(8):e0129305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26237037 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Exploration of different statistical approaches in the comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock: SOAP II.Crit Care. 2024 Sep 10;28(1):299. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05016-9. Crit Care. 2024. PMID: 39256813 Free PMC article.
-
Current perspectives in the management of sepsis and septic shock.Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Aug 15;11:1431791. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1431791. eCollection 2024. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 39211340 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Recent trends in septic shock management: a narrative review of current evidence and recommendations.Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024 May 15;86(8):4532-4540. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000002048. eCollection 2024 Aug. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024. PMID: 39118750 Free PMC article. Review.
-
An Update on Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Hypotension: When, Why, and Which Medication.Children (Basel). 2024 Apr 19;11(4):490. doi: 10.3390/children11040490. Children (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38671707 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The scientific rationale and study protocol for the DPP3, Angiotensin II, and Renin Kinetics in Sepsis (DARK-Sepsis) randomized controlled trial: serum biomarkers to predict response to angiotensin II versus standard-of-care vasopressor therapy in the treatment of septic shock.Trials. 2024 Mar 12;25(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-07995-0. Trials. 2024. PMID: 38475822 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
