↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: Inotropic drug therapy after adult cardiac surgery – a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2004
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bench-to-bedside review: Inotropic drug therapy after adult cardiac surgery – a systematic literature review
Published in
Critical Care, December 2004
DOI 10.1186/cc3024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Gillies, Rinaldo Bellomo, Laurie Doolan, Brian Buxton

Abstract

Many adult patients require temporary inotropic support after cardiac surgery. We reviewed the literature systematically to establish, present and classify the evidence regarding choice of inotropic drugs. The available evidence, while limited in quality and scope, supports the following observations; although all beta-agonists can increase cardiac output, the best studied beta-agonist and the one with the most favourable side-effect profile appears to be dobutamine. Dobutamine and phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDIs) are efficacious inotropic drugs for management of the low cardiac output syndrome. Dobutamine is associated with a greater incidence of tachycardia and tachyarrhythmias, whereas PDIs often require the administration of vasoconstrictors. Other catecholamines have no clear advantages over dobutamine. PDIs increase the likelihood of successful weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass as compared with placebo. There is insufficient evidence that inotropic drugs should be selected for their effects on regional perfusion. PDIs also increase flow through arterial grafts, reduce mean pulmonary artery pressure and improve right heart performance in pulmonary hypertension. Insufficient data exist to allow selection of a specific inotropic agent in preference over another in adult cardiac surgery patients. Multicentre randomized controlled trials focusing on clinical rather than physiological outcomes are needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 154 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 30 19%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Student > Master 16 10%
Other 34 21%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 63%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 33 20%