Title |
A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock
|
---|---|
Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00134-018-5242-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Djillali Annane, Lamia Ouanes-Besbes, Daniel de Backer, Bin DU, Anthony C. Gordon, Glenn Hernández, Keith M. Olsen, Tiffany M. Osborn, Sandra Peake, James A. Russell, Sergio Zanotti Cavazzoni |
Abstract |
We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices. This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists. Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Mexico | 37 | 16% |
Spain | 14 | 6% |
Colombia | 10 | 4% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 7 | 3% |
Peru | 7 | 3% |
United States | 7 | 3% |
Ecuador | 6 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 6 | 3% |
Chile | 6 | 3% |
Other | 32 | 14% |
Unknown | 101 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 196 | 84% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 27 | 12% |
Scientists | 9 | 4% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 346 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 43 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 12% |
Researcher | 33 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 32 | 9% |
Student > Master | 26 | 8% |
Other | 80 | 23% |
Unknown | 90 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 191 | 55% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 5% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
Engineering | 5 | 1% |
Other | 25 | 7% |
Unknown | 95 | 27% |