Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increasing arterial blood pressure with norepinephrine does not improve microcirculatory blood flow: a prospective study

Open access
Dubin, Arnaldo, Pozo, Mario O, Casabella, Christian A, Pálizas, Fernando, Murias, Gastón, Moseinco, Miriam C, Kanoore Edul, Vanina S, Pálizas, Fernando, Estenssoro, Elisa, Ince, Can·2009·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: Our goal was to assess the effects of titration of a norepinephrine infusion to increasing levels of mean arterial pressure (MAP) on sublingual microcirculation. Methods: Twenty septic shock patients were prospectively studied in two teaching intensive care units. The patients were mechanically ventilated and required norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg. We measured systemic hemodynamics, oxygen transport and consumption (DO 2 and VO 2 ), lactate, albumin-corrected anion gap, and gastric intramucosal-arterial PCO 2 difference (ΔPCO 2 ). Sublingual microcirculation was evaluated by sidestream darkfield (SDF) imaging. After basal measurements at a MAP of 65 mmHg, norepinephrine was titrated to reach a MAP of 75 mmHg, and then to 85 mmHg. Data were analyzed using repeated measurements ANOVA and Dunnett test. Linear trends between the different variables and increasing levels of MAP were calculated. Results: Increasing doses of norepinephrine reached the target values of MAP. The cardiac index, pulmonary pressures, systemic vascular resistance, and left and right ventricular stroke work indexes increased as norepinephrine infusion was augmented. Heart rate, DO 2 and VO 2 , lactate, albumin-corrected anion gap, and ΔPCO 2 remained unchanged. There were no changes in sublingual capillary microvascular flow index (2.1 ± 0.7, 2.2 ± 0.7, 2.0 ± 0.8) and the percent of perfused capillaries (72 ± 26, 71 ± 27, 67 ± 32%) for MAP values of 65, 75, and 85 mmHg, respectively. There was, however, a trend to decreased capillary perfused density (18 ± 10,17 ± 10,14 ± 2 vessels/mm 2 , respectively, ANOVA P = 0.09, linear trend P = 0.045). In addition, the changes of perfused capillary density at increasing MAP were inversely correlated with the basal perfused capillary density (R 2 = 0.95, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patients with septic shock showed severe sublingual microcirculatory alterations that failed to improve with the increases in MAP with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, there was a considerable interindividual variation. Our results suggest that the increase in MAP above 65 mmHg is not an adequate approach to improve microcirculatory perfusion and might be harmful in some patients.

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 · 10.1186/cc7922

Cites

31 of 31 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

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Dubin, A., Pozo, M. O., Casabella, C. A., Pálizas, F., Murias, G., Moseinco, M. C., Kanoore Edul, V. S., Pálizas, F., Estenssoro, E., & Ince, C.
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2009-06-17
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
R92-R92
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150408626
Cited by
466
References
31
FWCI
15.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

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.