• Guillermo Kohn-Loncarica, Ana Fustiñana, César Santos, Guadalupe Paniagua Lantelli, Hernan Rowensztein, and Sebastián González-Dambrauskas.
• Unidad Emergencias, Hospital de Pediatria "Prof. Dr. Juan P. Garrahan" - Buenos Aires, Argentina.
• Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020 Oct 1; 32 (4): 551-556.

ObjectiveTo analyze the clinical outcome of children with fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine or epinephrine.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at a pediatric emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Population: children admitted because of fluid-refractory septic shock. Clinical outcome was compared between two groups: Dopamine and Epinephrine. Variables evaluated were use of invasive mechanical ventilation, days of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, intensive care stay, and mortality. For numerical and categorical variables, we used measures of central tendency. They were compared by the Mann-Whitney U-test and the (2 test.ResultsWe included 118 patients. A total of 58.5% received dopamine and 41.5% received epinephrine. The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was 38.8% for epinephrine versus 40.6% for dopamine (p = 0.84), with a median of 4 days for the Epinephrine Group and 5.5 for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.104). Median time of inotropic therapy was 2 days for both groups (p = 0.714). Median hospital stay was 11 and 13 days for the Epinephrine and Dopamine groups, respectively (p = 0.554), and median stay in intensive care was 4 days (0 - 81 days) in both groups (p = 0.748). Mortality was 5% for the Epinephrine Group versus 9% for the Dopamine Group (p = 0.64).ConclusionsAt our center, no differences in use of invasive mechanical ventilation, time of inotropic therapy, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, or mortality were observed in children admitted to the pediatric emergency department with a diagnosis of fluid-refractory septic shock initially treated with dopamine versus epinephrine.

13 keywords...

hide…