Evidence Hub

Effects of intravenous paracetamol on mean arterial pressure in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Messina S, Ferro S, Santonocito C, Minardi C, Zawadka M, Drago F, Noto A, Sanfilippo F

Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine, 2025

143 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Intravenous administration of paracetamol to critically ill patients may have negative hemodynamic effects. However, such effects have not been adequately quantified.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (published in English language in PubMed and/or EMBASE) conducted on intensive care unit (ICU) patients, reporting hemodynamic changes within 30 min of intravenous paracetamol administration for fever and/or analgesia. The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval [95%CI] in mean arterial pressure (MAP). Secondary outcomes were systolic and diastolic arterial pressure (SAP and DAP), heart rate (HR), and incidence of hypotension. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to ascertain the robustness of findings.

Results: Eight studies were included. We observed significant reduction after paracetamol of MAP (5 studies, MD: -6.75 mmHg [-10.68; -2.82]; p = 0.0008; I2 = 74%), SAP (5 studies, MD: -11.55 mmHg [-20.55; -2.55]; p = 0.01; I2 = 78%) and DAP (5 studies, MD: -5.29 mmHg [-8.53; -2.05]; p = 0.001; I2 = 42%). No effects were seen for HR (4 studies, MD: -3.08 bpm [-7.09;0.93]; p = 0.13; I2 = 0%). Subgroup analyses were hampered by the small number of studies. MAP reduction appeared consistent when paracetamol was administered for fever. TSAs showed that results on MAP and DAP were robust; SAP and HR were not. The grade of evidence was very low. The occurrence of hypotension after…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 143 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free