The effect of dobutamine vs milrinone in sepsis: A big data, real‐world study

Background The use of dobutamine in patients with sepsis is questionable. Some studies reported milrinone was used as an alternative inotropic agent. We aim to evaluate whether milrinone is better than dobutamine in patients with sepsis. Methods Based on the analysis of MIMIC III public database, we...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of clinical practice (Esher) Vol. 75; no. 11; pp. e14689 - n/a
Main Authors Zhu, Youfeng, Yin, Haiyan, Zhang, Rui, Ye, Xiaoling, Wei, Jianrui
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Hindawi Limited 01.11.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background The use of dobutamine in patients with sepsis is questionable. Some studies reported milrinone was used as an alternative inotropic agent. We aim to evaluate whether milrinone is better than dobutamine in patients with sepsis. Methods Based on the analysis of MIMIC III public database, we performed a big data, real‐world study. According to the use of dobutamine or milrinone, patients were categorised as the dobutamine group or milrinone group. We used propensity score matched (PSM) analysis to adjust for confoundings. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Results In this study, after screening 38 605 patients, 235 patients with sepsis were included. One hundred and eighty‐three patients were in the dobutamine group and 52 patients were in the milrinone group. For the primary outcome of hospital mortality, there was no significant between‐group difference (73/183 in dobutamine group vs 23/52 in milrinone group, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.45‐1.56; P = .574). After adjusting for confoundings between groups by PSM analysis, hospital mortality was consistent with the overall result (50% vs 41.3%, OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.68‐2.97; P = .349). For the secondary outcomes, more patients in milrinone group received RRT use (46.2% vs 22.4%, P = .001), had longer length of ICU stay (20.97 ± 22.84 days vs 11.10 ± 11.54 days, P = .004) and hospital stay (26.14 ± 25.13 days vs 14.51 ± 13.11 days, P = .002) than those in dobutamine group. Conclusions Compared with dobutamine, the use of milrinone did not decrease hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. Furthermore, milrinone was associated with more RRT therapy, longer length of ICU stay and hospital stay than dobutamine.
Bibliography:Funding information
Youfeng Zhu and Haiyan Yin: co‐first authors.
This study was supported by the Guangzhou Science, Technology and Innovation Commission (201904010258). The funding body was not involved in the design of the study and collection, analysis and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1368-5031
1742-1241
DOI:10.1111/ijcp.14689