Summary of findings 7. Enoximone compared to dobutamine for low cardiac output syndrome.
| Enoximone compared with dobutamine for low cardiac output syndrome | ||||||
|
Patient or population: adults with low cardiac output syndrome Setting: hospital Intervention: enoximone Comparison: dobutamine | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with dobutamine | Risk with enoximone | |||||
| All‐cause short‐term mortality: 1 month | 500 per 10001 | Not estimable2 | RR 0.21 (0.01 to 4.11) | 37 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ very low3 |
Study included participants with LCOS after mitral valve surgery. |
| All‐cause long‐term mortality | Outcome not reported in any of the included studies. | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; LCOS: low cardiac output syndrome; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
1Control group risk estimate comes from a large observational study due to the small size of included studies in this population (Singh 2007).
2No in‐hospital deaths were observed in the study. 3Downgraded 2 levels for imprecision due to optimal information size criterion not being met and confidence interval crossing line of null effect and 1 level for study limitation due to methodological limitations from lack of blinding.