Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,538

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Elevation of Systemic Oxygen Delivery in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients

Open access
Hayes, Michelle A., Timmins, Andrew C., Yau, Ernest, Palazzo, Mark, Hinds, Charles J., Watson, David·1994·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elevation of systemic oxygen delivery and consumption has been associated with an improved outcome in critically ill patients. We conducted a randomized trial to determine whether boosting oxygen delivery by infusing the inotropic agent dobutamine would improve the outcome in a diverse group of such patients. METHODS: On the basis of previously published recommendations, we established the following goals: a cardiac index above 4.5 liters per minute per square meter of body-surface area, oxygen delivery above 600 ml per minute per square meter, and oxygen consumption above 170 ml per minute per square meter. If these goals were not achieved with volume expansion alone, patients were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. The treatment group received intravenous dobutamine (5 to 200 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per minute) until all three goals had been achieved. Dobutamine was administered to the control group only if the cardiac index was below 2.8 liters per minute per square meter. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were studied. In nine patients the therapeutic goals were achieved with volume expansion alone; all nine patients survived to leave the hospital. Fifty patients were randomly assigned to the treatment group, and 50 to the control group. During treatment, there were no differences between the two groups in mean arterial pressure or oxygen consumption, despite a significantly higher cardiac index and level of oxygen delivery in the treatment group (P < 0.05). Although the predicted risk of death during hospitalization was 34 percent for both groups, the in-hospital mortality was lower in the control group (34 percent) than in the treatment group (54 percent) (P = 0.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 39.1 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The use of dobutamine to boost the cardiac index and systemic oxygen delivery failed to improve the outcome in this heterogeneous group of critically ill patients. Contrary to what might have been expected, our results suggest that in some cases aggressive efforts to increase oxygen consumption may have been detrimental.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199406163302404

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 1,538

Metadata

Authors
Hayes, M. A., Timmins, A. C., Yau, E., Palazzo, M., Hinds, C. J., & Watson, D.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1994-06-16
Volume
330
Issue
24
Pages
1717-1722
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2021000405
Cited by
1,538
References
21
FWCI
71.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Elevation of Systemic Oxygen Delivery in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199406163302404
The paper
Hayes, M. A., Timmins, A. C., Yau, E., Palazzo, M., Hinds, C. J., & Watson, D. (1994). Elevation of Systemic Oxygen Delivery in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199406163302404

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.