Cited by 916Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P=0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843 .).

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/nejmoa1704154

Cites

24 of 24 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chawla LS, 2017, Crit Care Resusc, 19, 43
  2. Bassi E, 2013, Crit Care Res Pract, 2013, 654708

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 916

Metadata

Authors
Khanna, A., English, S. W., Wang, X. S., Ham, K., Tumlin, J., Szerlip, H., Busse, L. W., Altaweel, L., Albertson, T. E., Mackey, C., McCurdy, M. T., Boldt, D. W., Chock, S., Young, P. J., Krell, K., Wunderink, R. G., Ostermann, M., Murugan, R., Gong, M. N., Panwar, R., Hästbacka, J., Favory, R., Venkatesh, B., Thompson, B. T., Bellomo, R., Jensen, J., Kroll, S., Chawla, L. S., Tidmarsh, G. F., & Deane, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Regions Hospital (US)
  • Inova Health System (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2017-08-03
Volume
377
Issue
5
Pages
419-430
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2614578436
Cited by
916
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 121 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 25
FWCI
64.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company
  • Alexion Pharmaceuticals
  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
  • Genentech
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Keywords
angiotensin II, vasodilatory shock, septic shock, vasopressors, norepinephrine, mean arterial pressure, SOFA score, mortality, blood pressure response, adverse events, sepsis treatment, vasopressor-refractory shock, fluid resuscitation, vasopressor dose reduction, organ dysfunction, 28-day mortality
MeSH terms
Aged, Angiotensin II, Blood Pressure, Catecholamines, Double-Blind Method, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Hypotension, Male, Middle Aged, Shock, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Organ Dysfunction Scores

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