Background: The use of dobutamine in patients with sepsis is questionable. Some studies reported milrinone was used as an alternative inotropic agent. We aim to evaluate whether milrinone is better than dobutamine in patients with sepsis.
Methods: Based on the analysis of MIMIC III public database, we performed a big data, real-world study. According to the use of dobutamine or milrinone, patients were categorised as the dobutamine group or milrinone group. We used propensity score matched (PSM) analysis to adjust for confoundings. The primary outcome was hospital mortality.
Results: In this study, after screening 38 605 patients, 235 patients with sepsis were included. One hundred and eighty-three patients were in the dobutamine group and 52 patients were in the milrinone group. For the primary outcome of hospital mortality, there was no significant between-group difference (73/183 in dobutamine group vs 23/52 in milrinone group, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.45-1.56; P = .574). After adjusting for confoundings between groups by PSM analysis, hospital mortality was consistent with the overall result (50% vs 41.3%, OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.68-2.97; P = .349). For the secondary outcomes, more patients in milrinone group received RRT use (46.2% vs 22.4%, P = .001), had longer length of ICU stay (20.97 ± 22.84 days vs 11.10 ± 11.54 days, P = .004) and hospital stay (26.14 ± 25.13 days vs 14.51 ± 13.11 days, P = .002) than those in dobutamine group.
Conclusions: Compared with dobutamine, the use of milrinone did not decrease hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. Furthermore, milrinone was associated with more RRT therapy, longer length of ICU stay and hospital stay than dobutamine.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.