Schmoelz Martin, Schelling Gustav, Dunker Martin, Irlbeck Michael
Department of Anesthesiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2006 Apr;20(2):173-8. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2005.10.016. Epub 2006 Feb 21.
Vasopressor-induced vasoconstriction may compromise renal and splanchnic blood flow in patients with septic shock, resulting in secondary organ failures. The authors compared the effects of the vasodilatatory agent dopexamine against renal-dose dopamine and placebo in patients with norepinephrine therapy and septic shock, using 24-hour serum creatinine clearance (C(crea)) as a major endpoint. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that dopexamine is more effective than dopamine and that dopamine shows better effects than placebo regarding organ failures and C(crea).
A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study.
Intensive care unit in a tertiary care university hospital.
Sixty-one patients with septic shock defined according to established criteria.
Patients received either dopexamine (2 microg/kg/min, n = 20), dopamine (3 microg/kg/min, n = 21), or placebo (n = 20).
The trial groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. The authors found no significant differences among the dopexamine, dopamine, and placebo groups with regard to a comprehensive number of renal function parameters including C(crea) and organ-failure scores. There was a significant increase in heart rate after dopexamine infusion; other hemodynamic parameters remained unchanged in the dopexamine group. In a post hoc analysis that included only patients with renal impairment at study inclusion (n = 28), patients who received dopamine showed significant improvements in C(crea) when compared with placebo. Dopexamine was not effective in this subgroup.
Dopexamine is no more effective than dopamine or placebo regarding renal function in patients with septic shock requiring norepinephrine. Both therapies do not influence organ-failure scores.
血管升压药引起的血管收缩可能会损害感染性休克患者的肾血流和内脏血流,导致继发性器官衰竭。作者比较了血管扩张剂多培沙明与肾剂量多巴胺及安慰剂对接受去甲肾上腺素治疗的感染性休克患者的影响,将24小时血清肌酐清除率(C(crea))作为主要终点指标。要检验的主要假设是,在器官衰竭和C(crea)方面,多培沙明比多巴胺更有效,且多巴胺比安慰剂效果更好。
一项前瞻性、随机、对照、双盲研究。
一所三级护理大学医院的重症监护病房。
61例符合既定标准的感染性休克患者。
患者分别接受多培沙明(2微克/千克/分钟,n = 20)、多巴胺(3微克/千克/分钟,n = 21)或安慰剂(n = 20)治疗。
各试验组的基线特征相似。作者发现,在包括C(crea)在内的多项肾功能参数和器官衰竭评分方面,多培沙明组、多巴胺组和安慰剂组之间无显著差异。输注多培沙明后心率显著增加;多培沙明组的其他血流动力学参数保持不变。在一项仅纳入研究开始时存在肾功能损害患者(n = 28)的事后分析中,与安慰剂相比,接受多巴胺治疗的患者C(crea)有显著改善。多培沙明在该亚组中无效。
对于需要去甲肾上腺素治疗的感染性休克患者,在肾功能方面,多培沙明并不比多巴胺或安慰剂更有效。两种治疗方法均不影响器官衰竭评分。