Loading
Epinephrine / Septic Shock / dopamine · Interventional Study
ClinicalTrials.gov · August 19, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This is a completed but unpublished randomized trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov comparing epinephrine versus dopamine as first-line vasoactive support in 66 children (aged 2–12 years) with fluid-refractory hypotensive septic shock. The study design and primary outcome (shock reversal within 60 minutes) are clearly defined, but no results are reported in this registry record.
Interventional, Randomized, Parallel, Single masking, Treatment purpose. Septic Shock; age from 2 Years; to 12 Years. Intervention: Epinephrine Group. Compared with: Dopamine Group — Active Comparator. n = 66. 1 site: Pakistan.
This is a completed but unpublished randomized trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov comparing epinephrine versus dopamine as first-line vasoactive support in 66 children (aged 2–12 years) with fluid-refractory hypotensive septic shock. The study design and primary outcome (shock reversal within 60 minutes) are clearly defined, but no results are reported in this registry record.
No efficacy, safety, or mortality results are reported in this registry record.
Clinicians should await publication of results from this trial, which directly addresses a key decision in pediatric septic shock management. The choice between dopamine and epinephrine as first-line vasoactive agents in fluid-refractory cases remains unsettled pending these findings.
This is a completed registry record for a 66-child randomized trial comparing dopamine and epinephrine in pediatric septic shock, but the source reports NO RESULTS, only the study design and planned outcomes.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
Clinicians should await publication of results from this trial, which directly addresses a key decision in pediatric septic shock management. The choice between dopamine and epinephrine as first-line vasoactive agents in fluid-refractory cases remains unsettled pending these findings.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
What is missing. This record has no key findings. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Registry record from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07775001). This is a study registration, not published results. Lead sponsor: Nishtar Medical University. Recruitment status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING. Phase: NA. Study type: INTERVENTIONAL. Enrollment: 66 participants (ACTUAL). Conditions: Septic Shock. Interventions: DRUG: Epinephrine; DRUG: dopamine. Primary outcome measures: Shock Reversal Within 60 Minutes , 60 minutes after initiation of the randomized vasoactive infusion. Brief summary: This randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare dopamine with epinephrine as the first vasoactive treatment in children aged 2 to 12 years with fluid-refractory hypotensive septic shock. Children who remained hypotensive with signs of poor tissue perfusion after receiving standardized intravenous fluid resuscitation were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either dopamine or epinephrine. The study was designed to determine whether epinephrine resulted in a higher rate of shock reversal within the first 60 minutes after starting vasoactive treatment compared with dopamine. Shock reversal was assessed using improvement in age-appropriate blood pressure, capillary refill, peripheral circulation, mental status, and urine output. A total of 66 children were included, with 33 participants assigned to each treatment group. Epinephrine was administered at doses ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 microgram/kg/minute, while dopamine was administered at doses ranging from 10 to 20 microgram/kg/minute according to a predefined escalation schedule. In addition to shock reversal within one hour, the study compared sustained hemodynamic stability, the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 hours, and in-hospital mortality between the two treatment groups.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.