Abstract
Abstract only
Introduction:
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for CS, little evidence exists to guide the selection of inotropic agents in clinical practice.
Methods:
In this double blind randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients with SCAI class B to E shock to either milrinone or dobutamine for inotropic support. Therapy was titrated based on clinical, biochemical and hemodynamic response as evaluated by the treating physician. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint of in hospital mortality, non-fatal MI, stroke, new initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT), need for MCS or cardiac transplant, or cardiac arrest with successful resuscitation. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome.
Results:
Among 192 participants, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome, occurring in 49% (47 of 96) of patients in the milrinone arm and 54% (52 of 96) patients in the dobutamine group (RR 0.90, 95% CI of 0.69-1.19, p-value = 0.47). There were also no differences in important secondary outcomes between milrinone and dobutamine, including in-hospital mortality 37% (35 of 96) vs 43% (41 of 96) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60-1.21, p-value = 0.38) or need for RRT 22% (21 of 96) vs 17% (16 of 96) (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.73-2.36, p-value = 0.36).
Conclusions:
In this randomized clinical trial of milrinone and dobutamine in CS, there was no difference in the primary composite outcome or in important secondary outcomes. The selection of inotropic agent could reasonably be based on physician comfort, cost and individual response to therapy.