Prophylactic use of inotropic agents for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery

As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Cochrane database of systematic reviews Vol. 11; p. CD013781
Main Authors:	Gayatri, Dwi, Tongers, Jörn, Efremov, Ljupcho, Mikolajczyk, Rafael, Sedding, Daniel, Schumann, Julia
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England 27.11.2024
Subjects:	Adult Aged Bias Cardiac Output, Low - mortality Cardiac Output, Low - prevention & control Cardiac Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Cardiac Surgical Procedures - mortality Cardiotonic Agents - therapeutic use Dobutamine - therapeutic use Humans Hydrazones - therapeutic use Milrinone - therapeutic use Postoperative Complications - mortality Postoperative Complications - prevention & control Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Simendan - therapeutic use
ISSN:	1469-493X, 1469-493X
Online Access:	Get more information
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Abstract	As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis. To assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents). We used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo. We identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared to placebo might reduce the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91; I = 74%; 1881 participants, 10 studies; GRADE: low). There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan compared to standard cardiac care on LCOS (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.73; I = 59%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: very low), all-cause mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.04; I = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low), adverse events (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; atrial fibrillation: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I = 60%; 188 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.18; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), length of ICU stay (mean difference 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.83; 80 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low), the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -3.40 hours, 95% CI -11.50 to 4.70; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), and the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55; I = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low). Prophylactic treatment with levosimendan may reduce the incidence of LCOS and probably reduces associated mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery when compared to placebo only. Conclusions on the benefits and harms of other inotropic agents cannot be drawn due to limited study data. Given the limited evidence available, there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials. Future studies of levosimendan ought to be designed to derive potential benefit in specific patient groups and surgery types, and the optimal administration protocol.
AbstractList	As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis. To assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents). We used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo. We identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared to placebo might reduce the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91; I = 74%; 1881 participants, 10 studies; GRADE: low). There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan compared to standard cardiac care on LCOS (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.73; I = 59%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: very low), all-cause mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.04; I = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low), adverse events (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; atrial fibrillation: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I = 60%; 188 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.18; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), length of ICU stay (mean difference 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.83; 80 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low), the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -3.40 hours, 95% CI -11.50 to 4.70; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), and the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55; I = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low). Prophylactic treatment with levosimendan may reduce the incidence of LCOS and probably reduces associated mortality in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery when compared to placebo only. Conclusions on the benefits and harms of other inotropic agents cannot be drawn due to limited study data. Given the limited evidence available, there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials. Future studies of levosimendan ought to be designed to derive potential benefit in specific patient groups and surgery types, and the optimal administration protocol. As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis.BACKGROUNDAs the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities who are at higher risk of developing perioperative complications such as low cardiac output state (LCOS). Surgery-associated LCOS represents a serious pathology responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Prevention of LCOS is a critical and worthwhile aim to further improve the outcome and effectiveness of cardiac surgery. However, guidelines consistently report a lack of evidence for pharmacological LCOS prophylaxis.To assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.OBJECTIVESTo assess the benefits and harms of the prophylactic use of any inotropic agent to prevent low cardiac output and associated morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.We identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials.SEARCH METHODSWe identified trials (without language restrictions) via systematic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2022. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional references. We also searched two registers of ongoing trials.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents).SELECTION CRITERIAWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults who underwent cardiac surgery and were prophylactically treated with one or multiple inotropic agent(s) in comparison to any type of control (i.e. standard cardiac care, placebo, other inotropic agents).We used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISWe used established methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to a pre-defined protocol. On request, we obtained a reply and additional information from only one of the included study authors. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of evidence from the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the pre-specified outcomes. Based on the identified studies, there were seven comparison groups: amrinone versus placebo, dopamine versus placebo, milrinone versus placebo, levosimendan versus dobutamine, levosimendan versus milrinone, levosimendan versus standard cardiac care, and levosimendan versus placebo.We identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I2 = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I2 = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I2 = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared to placebo might reduce the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91; I2 = 74%; 1881 participants, 10 studies; GRADE: low). There was no conclusive evidence on the effect of levosimendan compared to standard cardiac care on LCOS (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.73; I2 = 59%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: very low), all-cause mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low), adverse events (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; atrial fibrillation: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I2 = 60%; 188 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.18; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), length of ICU stay (mean difference 0.33 days, 95% CI -1.16 to 1.83; 80 participants, 2 studies; GRADE: very low), the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -3.40 hours, 95% CI -11.50 to 4.70; 128 participants, 1 study; GRADE: very low), and the number of participants requiring mechanical circulatory support (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.55; I2 = 0%; 208 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: low).MAIN RESULTSWe identified 29 eligible studies, including 3307 individuals, and four ongoing studies. In general, confidence in the results of the analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations, imprecision, or inconsistency. Domains of concern encompassed inadequate methods of sequence generation and lack of blinding. The majority of trials were small, with only a few included participants, and investigated the prophylactic use of levosimendan. Our meta-analyses showed that levosimendan as compared to placebo may reduce the risk of LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.74; I2 = 66%; 1724 participants, 6 studies; GRADE: low) and probably reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; I2 = 11%; 2347 participants, 14 studies; GRADE: moderate). This translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 to prevent one event of LCOS post surgery and of 44 to prevent one death at 30 days. Subgroup analyses revealed that the beneficial effects of levosimendan were predominantly observed in preoperative drug administration. Our meta-analyses further indicated that levosimendan as compared to placebo may shorten the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.37; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -8.03 hours, 95% CI -13.17 to -2.90; 572 participants, 7 studies; GRADE: very low) but the evidence is very uncertain. The risk of adverse events did not clearly differ between levosimendan and placebo groups (cardiogenic shock: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 1212 participants, 3 studies; GRADE: high; atrial fibrillation: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; I2 = 60%; 1934 participants, 11 studies; GRADE: very low; perioperative myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 13%; 1838 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate; non-embolic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 1786 participants, 8 studies; GRADE: moderate). However, levosimendan as compared t
Author	Tongers, Jörn Gayatri, Dwi Sedding, Daniel Schumann, Julia Mikolajczyk, Rafael Efremov, Ljupcho
Author_xml	– sequence: 1 givenname: Dwi surname: Gayatri fullname: Gayatri, Dwi organization: Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia – sequence: 2 givenname: Jörn surname: Tongers fullname: Tongers, Jörn organization: Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany – sequence: 3 givenname: Ljupcho surname: Efremov fullname: Efremov, Ljupcho organization: Institute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics (IMEBI), Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical School of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany – sequence: 4 givenname: Rafael surname: Mikolajczyk fullname: Mikolajczyk, Rafael organization: Institute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics (IMEBI), Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Medical School of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany – sequence: 5 givenname: Daniel surname: Sedding fullname: Sedding, Daniel organization: Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany – sequence: 6 givenname: Julia surname: Schumann fullname: Schumann, Julia organization: Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care, University Medicine Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany
BackLink	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39601298$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark	eNpNkMtOwzAQRS0EAlr4BeQlmxbbSRx7icpTQoIFSOwqx560QYkd_ADlE_hrjHiI1czcuXOkOzO0a50FhE4oWVJC2BkteUVFJZarC0KLWtDlmBq2gw7zQi5KWTzv_usP0CyEF0IKSanYRweF5IQyKQ7Rx4N343bqlY6dxikAdi3urItZzoLagI0Bt87juAU8enjLQufsl61371grbzqlsUtxTBGHyRrvBsDKGjw4H1XfxSkDsTKpz6RkDfiN6-zm7zQkvwE_HaG9VvUBjn_qHD1dXT6ubhZ399e3q_O7hS7rki1Eo6DKQRTXpm6N0lXVSNYY4AQKWRFBjJK1FpzzktWEmhry1BLeQEMErdgcnX5zR-9eE4S4Hrqgoe-VBZfCuqBFUXJWUpmtJz_W1Axg1qPvBuWn9e_72CdElnkY
CitedBy_id	crossref_primary_10_1111_aor_15038
ContentType	Journal Article
Copyright	Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
Copyright_xml	– notice: Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
DBID	CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8
DOI	10.1002/14651858.CD013781.pub2
DatabaseName	Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle	MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList	MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic
Database_xml	– sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod	no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline	Medicine
EISSN	1469-493X
ExternalDocumentID	39601298
Genre	Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article
GroupedDBID	--- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8
ID	FETCH-LOGICAL-c4742-8bae5039a6cd7fdac55b92bde60e395080da97c866642701d7e7c8f06beb08152
IEDL.DBID	7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount	2
ISICitedReferencesURI	http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001378164800001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN	1469-493X
IngestDate	Sun Nov 09 13:50:09 EST 2025 Sun Jul 13 01:33:46 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess	false
IsOpenAccess	true
IsPeerReviewed	true
IsScholarly	true
Language	English
License	Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
LinkModel	DirectLink
MergedId	FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4742-8bae5039a6cd7fdac55b92bde60e395080da97c866642701d7e7c8f06beb08152
Notes	ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Undefined-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 ObjectType-Review-4 content type line 23
OpenAccessLink	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/11600501
PMID	39601298
PQID	3133462419
PQPubID	23479
ParticipantIDs	proquest_miscellaneous_3133462419 pubmed_primary_39601298
PublicationCentury	2000
PublicationDate	2024-11-27
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD	2024-11-27
PublicationDate_xml	– month: 11 year: 2024 text: 2024-11-27 day: 27
PublicationDecade	2020
PublicationPlace	England
PublicationPlace_xml	– name: England
PublicationTitle	Cochrane database of systematic reviews
PublicationTitleAlternate	Cochrane Database Syst Rev
PublicationYear	2024
SSID	ssj0039118
Score	2.473954
SecondaryResourceType	review_article
Snippet	As the burden of cardiovascular disease grows, so does the number of cardiac surgeries. Surgery is increasingly performed on older people with comorbidities...
SourceID	proquest pubmed
SourceType	Aggregation Database Index Database
StartPage	CD013781
SubjectTerms	Adult Aged Bias Cardiac Output, Low - mortality Cardiac Output, Low - prevention & control Cardiac Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Cardiac Surgical Procedures - mortality Cardiotonic Agents - therapeutic use Dobutamine - therapeutic use Humans Hydrazones - therapeutic use Milrinone - therapeutic use Postoperative Complications - mortality Postoperative Complications - prevention & control Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Simendan - therapeutic use
Title	Prophylactic use of inotropic agents for the prevention of low cardiac output syndrome and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery
URI	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39601298 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3133462419
Volume	11
WOSCitedRecordID	wos001378164800001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings	1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3JTsMwELWAIsSFfSmbjMQ1NHUW2yeEChWXVj2A1FvlFVUqcWla-Ab-mrGTlhMSEpdIceIomoztN568eQjdkMRIJXk7kgk3Uao5jxhJbSSJtVwKa6gRQWyC9vtsOOSDesOtrH-rXM6JYaLWTvk98lYCwVSaw3rD76bvkVeN8tnVWkJjHTXgOvdeTYerLEICA5lV7CKvpJYMlwzhmLTaXgOcZey28-CL7rFQi5r8DjPDctPd_e-L7qGdGmji-8oz9tGaKQ7QVq9OpR-ir8HMgYkngSSFF6XBzuJx4ebQDA3CU65KDJAWA0TE07rSkyv8bRP3iVVwLYXdYj5dzPGy8gEWhcZvAdMDvocH4lDho8SerDZ7dbBSrrqWFSX7CL10H587T1GtyxCpFCLpiElhMrCuyJWmVguVZZITqU0em8SrysZacKoYREYpoXFbUwNnNs6lkYBAMnKMNgpXmFOEU8pJOxU5wLQ41TKWGXQ13AoJwCGneRNdL408Ar_3yQxRGLcoRz9mbqKT6kuNplWBjlECYRngGHb2h97naJsATvH0QkIvUMPCqDeXaFN9zMfl7Co4FBz7g943kdvYnw
linkProvider	ProQuest
openUrl	ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prophylactic+use+of+inotropic+agents+for+the+prevention+of+low+cardiac+output+syndrome+and+mortality+in+adults+undergoing+cardiac+surgery&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Gayatri%2C+Dwi&rft.au=Tongers%2C+J%C3%B6rn&rft.au=Efremov%2C+Ljupcho&rft.au=Mikolajczyk%2C+Rafael&rft.date=2024-11-27&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=11&rft.spage=CD013781&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.CD013781.pub2&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39601298&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39601298&rft.externalDocID=39601298
thumbnail_l	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon
thumbnail_m	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon
thumbnail_s	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon