Objectives. (1) To conduct a network meta-analysis of clinical drugs used for cardiogenic shock and (2) provide evidence for the selection of medication for the treatment of this condition. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, China HowNet (CNKI), Wanfang database, and Weipu database were searched using keywords Dopamine, Dobutamine, Epinephrine, Adrenaline, Norepinephrine, Noradrenaline, Milrinone, Natriuretic peptide, Recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide, Levosimendan, Cardiac shock, and Cardiogenic shock. We select literature according to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria and record data such as drug type, mortality, and adverse reactions. Results. Twenty-eight of 1387 articles met inclusion criteria, comprising 1806 patients who suffered from cardiogenic shock. Dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, milrinone, recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide, and levosimendan were all commonly used in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. Milrinone was most effective at reducing mortality and had the lowest incidence of adverse reactions. Conclusion. This network meta-analysis demonstrated that milrinone was the most effective medication at reducing mortality and adverse events in patients suffering from cardiogenic shock.

BackgroundAt present, there is a preliminary clinical consensus that prone position ventilation (PPV) is beneficial to the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and further research on the details of treatment and patients' benefits will help to assess its effectiveness and safety.AimsTo evaluate the timing, efficacy, and safety of different mechanical ventilation positions (MVP) in treating ARDS.DesignThe results of clinical trials were directly or indirectly compared by network meta‐analysis to compare the effects of different MVP.MethodTwo authors independently searched the papers published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Discs (CBM), WanFang, and VIP database from January 2000 to August 2022. The outcome indicators were oxygenation index, mechanical ventilation time, ICU hospitalization time, in‐hospital mortality, and incidence of adverse events. Two authors independently screened the literature, evaluated the quality of the studies, and completed the data extraction. Stata 14.0 was used to conduct a network Meta‐analysis, and the intervention measures were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Funnel plots were drawn to evaluate publication bias.ResultsAccording to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 75 studies (including 6333 patient data) were finally included. According to the analysis results, PPV was the best for improving the oxygenation index. The SUCRA values of mechanical ventilation time, ICU hospitalization time, and in‐hospital mortality were ranked as PPV > lateral position ventilation (LPV) > supine position ventilation (SuPV) > semireclining position ventilation (SePV). The SUCRA values in the incidence of adverse events were ranked as LPV > PPV > SuPV > SePV. All outcome measures had good consistency and low statistical heterogeneity. Funnel plot analysis shows that papers reported within three days of mechanical ventilation time, over five days of mechanical ventilation time, and in‐hospital mortality were more likely to have publication bias.ConclusionsPPV has the best effect on improving the oxygenation index, reducing mechanical ventilation time, shortening ICU hospitalization time, and reducing in‐hospital mortality. Early and long‐term use of PPV to improve pulmonary ventilatory function will be the key to improving patients' survival and quality of life with ARDS.Relevance to clinical practicePPV significantly affects patients with ARDS, which can shorten the treatment time and reduce hospital costs. During the treatment, nursing observation should be strengthened to prevent adverse events.