Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Network Meta-analysis and Subgroup Analyses of Shockable and Nonshockable Rhythms

EDucated: The emergency medicine pharmacotherapy literature of 2023

The purpose of this article is to summarize pharmacotherapy related emergency medicine (EM) literature indexed in 2023. Articles were selected utilizing a modified Delphi approach. The table of contents from pre-determined journals were reviewed and independently evaluated via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system by paired authors. Pharmacotherapy-related publications deemed to be GRADE 1A and 1B were reviewed by the collective group for inclusion in the review. In all, this article summarizes and provides commentary on the potential clinical impact of 13 articles, 6 guidelines, and 5 meta-analyses covering topics including guideline releases and updates on rapid sequence intubation in the critically ill, managing cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning, and management of major bleeding following trauma. Also discussed are ongoing controversies surrounding fluid resuscitation, time and treatment modalities for ischemic stroke, steroid use in community-acquired pneumonia, targeted blood product administration, and much more.

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in the treatment of adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

The VICTOR (Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous injection during resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) trial involved emergency medical service agencies with all four advanced life support ambulance teams in Taipei City, Taiwan. The enrolment period spanned 6 July 2020 to 30 June 2023 and was temporarily suspended between 20 May 2021 and 31 July 2021 owing to the covid-19 pandemic.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult (age 20-80 years) patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

INTERVENTIONS

Biweekly randomised clusters of four participating advanced life support ambulance teams were assigned to insert either intravenous or intraosseous access.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation (≥2 hours), and survival with favourable neurological outcomes (cerebral performance category score ≤2) at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Among 1771 enrolled patients, 1732 (741 in the intraosseous group and 991 in the intravenous group) were included in the primary analysis (median age 65.0 years; 1234 (71.2%) men). In the intraosseous group, 79 (10.7%) patients were discharged alive, compared with 102 (10.3%) patients in the intravenous group (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.42; P=0.81). The odds ratio of intraosseous versus intravenous access was 1.23 (0.89 to 1.69; P=0.21) for pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, 0.92 (0.75 to 1.13; P=0.44) for sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and 1.17 (0.82 to 1.66; P=0.39) for survival with favourable neurological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, initial attempts to establish vascular access through the intraosseous route did not result in different outcomes compared with intravenous access in terms of the proportion of patients surviving to hospital discharge, pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and favourable neurological outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04135547ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04135547.

A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock

Shock is a life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Vasopressors and inotropes are vasoactive medications that are vital in increasing systemic vascular resistance and cardiac contractility, respectively, in patients presenting with shock. To be well versed in using these agents is an important skill to have in the critical care setting where patients can frequently exhibit symptoms of shock. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms of shock and evaluate the current evidence behind the management of shock with an emphasis on vasopressors and inotropes.

Management of patients with an electrical storm or clustered ventricular arrhythmias: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC-endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, Heart Rhythm Society, and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society

Electrical storm (ES) is a state of electrical instability, manifesting as recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) over a short period of time (three or more episodes of sustained VA within 24 h, separated by at least 5 min, requiring termination by an intervention). The clinical presentation can vary, but ES is usually a cardiac emergency. Electrical storm mainly affects patients with structural or primary electrical heart disease, often with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Management of ES requires a multi-faceted approach and the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams, but despite advanced treatment and often invasive procedures, it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. With an ageing population, longer survival of heart failure patients, and an increasing number of patients with ICD, the incidence of ES is expected to increase. This European Heart Rhythm Association clinical consensus statement focuses on pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and acute and long-term management of patients presenting with ES or clustered VA.

Differences in Pathophysiology and Treatment Efficacy Based on Heterogeneous Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is heterogeneous in terms of etiology and severity. Owing to this heterogeneity, differences in outcome and treatment efficacy have been reported from case to case; however, few reviews have focused on the heterogeneity of OHCA. We conducted a literature review to identify differences in the prognosis and treatment efficacy in terms of CA-related waveforms (shockable or non-shockable), age (adult or pediatric), and post-CA syndrome severity and to determine the preferred treatment for patients with OHCA to improve outcomes.

Cumulative dose of epinephrine and mode of death after non-shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a registry-based study

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine increases the chances of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), especially when the initial rhythm is non-shockable. However, this drug could also worsen the post-resuscitation syndrome (PRS). We assessed the association between epinephrine use during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and subsequent intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in patients with ROSC after non-shockable OHCA.

METHODS

We used data prospectively collected in the Sudden Death Expertise Center (SDEC) registry (capturing OHCA data located in the Greater Paris area, France) between May 2011 and December 2021. All adults with ROSC after medical, cardiac and non-cardiac causes, non-shockable OHCA admitted to an ICU were included. The mode of death in the ICU was categorized as cardiocirculatory, neurological, or other.

RESULTS

Of the 2,792 patients analyzed, there were 242 (8.7%) survivors at hospital discharge, 1,004 (35.9%) deaths from cardiocirculatory causes, 1,233 (44.2%) deaths from neurological causes, and 313 (11.2%) deaths from other etiologies. The cardiocirculatory death group received more epinephrine (4.6 ± 3.8 mg versus 1.7 ± 2.8 mg, 3.2 ± 2.6 mg, and 3.5 ± 3.6 mg for survivors, neurological deaths, and other deaths, respectively; p < 0.001). The proportion of cardiocirculatory death increased linearly (R2 = 0.92, p < 0.001) with cumulative epinephrine doses during CPR (17.7% in subjects who did not receive epinephrine and 62.5% in those who received > 10 mg). In multivariable analysis, a cumulative dose of epinephrine was strongly associated with cardiocirculatory death (adjusted odds ratio of 3.45, 95% CI [2.01-5.92] for 1 mg of epinephrine; 12.28, 95% CI [7.52-20.06] for 2-5 mg; and 23.71, 95% CI [11.02-50.97] for > 5 mg; reference 0 mg; population reference: alive at hospital discharge), even after adjustment on duration of resuscitation. The other modes of death (neurological and other causes) were also associated with epinephrine use, but to a lesser extent.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-shockable OHCA with ROSC, the dose of epinephrine used during CPR is strongly associated with early cardiocirculatory death. Further clinical studies aimed at limiting the dose of epinephrine during CPR seem warranted. Moreover, strategies for the prevention and management of PRS should take this dose of epinephrine into consideration for future trials.