↓ Skip to main content

Time to re-think the use of dobutamine in sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Time to re-think the use of dobutamine in sepsis
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0264-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryota Sato, Michitaka Nasu

Abstract

Dobutamine is commonly used worldwide and included in the protocol for early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). Since the use of dobutamine in EGDT was reported, it has been considered to be an important component, especially in the treatment of septic patients with myocardial dysfunction. However, it is questionable whether dobutamine improves the mortality of sepsis and septic shock. In three recent randomized controlled trials (ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE trials), the frequency of dobutamine use was significantly higher in the EGDT group than in the standard care group, but there were no significant differences in the mortality between the groups. These results suggested that dobutamine use may have been overemphasized despite its insignificant effect on the mortality in septic patients. Further, a propensity score analysis revealed that dobutamine use was associated with higher mortality in patients with septic shock. Although dobutamine leads to an increase in cardiac index, myocardial oxygen demand also increases, thus increasing the risk of myocardial ischemia and tachyarrhythmia. It is well known that the mortality in sepsis complicated with atrial fibrillation (AFib) is worse than that in sepsis without AFib. A propensity score-matched analysis reported that β-blockers were associated with better survival in patients with sepsis complicated with AFib. Further, a randomized controlled trial reported that a short-acting β-blocker improved the survival in patients with septic shock. These studies also indicated the risk of β-stimulation during sepsis. Notably, improvements in surrogate markers, such as CI, do not always indicate improvements in patient-centered outcomes, such as mortality. Conversely, some evidence indicates the worsening of patient-centered outcomes despite improvements in surrogate markers. Thus, available evidence suggests that the benefits of dobutamine in patients with sepsis are unclear, but its use might be harmful rather than beneficial, considering the beneficial effects of β-blockers in sepsis that have been reported in recent clinical studies. From this perspective, we will soon have to rethink regarding dobutamine use in patients with sepsis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Other 6 14%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2023.
All research outputs
#14,725,123
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#373
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,213
of 440,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.