Reduced effectiveness of vasopressin in repeated doses for patients undergoing prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Effectiveness of Vasopressin Against Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

PURPOSE

This systematic review (SR) of SRs evaluates the effectiveness of vasopressin alone or in combination with other drugs in improving the outcomes of cardiac arrest (CA).

METHODS

Using a three-step approach, we searched five databases to identify all relevant SRs. Two reviewers independently selected suitable studies, assessed study quality, and extracted relevant data. If an outcome was reported by multiple SRs, a re-meta-analysis was conducted as needed; otherwise, a narrative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twelve SRs covering 16 original studies were included in this review. The meta-analysis results revealed a significant increase in survival to hospital admission for patients with in-hospital CA (IHCA) or out-of-hospital CA (OHCA) receiving vasopressin alone compared with that for those receiving epinephrine alone. Furthermore, the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was significantly increased in patients with OHCA receiving vasopressin with epinephrine compared with that in those receiving epinephrine alone. Compared with patients with IHCA receiving epinephrine with placebo, those receiving vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine (VSE) exhibited significant increases in ROSC, survival to hospital discharge, favorable neurological outcomes, mean arterial pressure, renal failure-free days, coagulation failure-free days, and insulin requirement.

CONCLUSION

VSE is the most effective drug combination for improving the short- and long-term outcomes of IHCA. It is recommended to use VSE in patients with IHCA. Future studies should investigate the effectiveness of VSE against OHCA and CA of various etiologies, the types and standard dosages of steroids for cardiac resuscitation, and the effectiveness of vasopressin-steroid in improving CA outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome.

RESULTS

We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85).

INTERPRETATION

Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq.

Therapeutic effects of vasopressin on cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the therapeutic effect of vasopressin as an alternative treatment for cardiac arrest.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials. The intervention included administration of vasopressin alone or vasopressin combined with epinephrine or vasopressin, steroids and epinephrine (VSE) versus epinephrine combined with placebo as control group. The primary outcome was the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The secondary outcomes included mid-term survival and mid-term good neurological outcome. We conducted subgroup analyses of the primary outcome based on different settings, different study drug strategies and different types of initial rhythm.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (n=6718) were included, of which eight trials (n=5638) reported the data on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and four trials (n=1080) on patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). There were no significant differences between intravenous vasopressin and placebo in the outcomes of ROSC (relative risk (RR): 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.26), mid-term survival (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.66) and mid-term good neurological outcome (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.87). However, in the subgroup analysis, intravenous vasopressin as part of VSE can significantly improve the rate of ROSC (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.47) but not the rate of mid-term survival (RR: 2.15; 95% CI: 0.75 to 6.16) and mid-term good neurological outcome (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 0.81 to 4.01) for patients with IHCA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study failed to demonstrate increased benefit from vasopressin with or without epinephrine compared with the standard of care. However, vasopressin as a part of VSE is associated with the improvement of ROSC in patients with IHCA, and the benefit on mid-term survival or mid-term good neurological outcome is uncertain. Larger trials should be conducted in the future to address the effect of vasopressin only, vasopressin plus epinephrine or VSE on cardiac arrest.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021293347.

Masked Randomized Trial of Epinephrine versus Vasopressin in an Ovine Model of Perinatal Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND

Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend the use of epinephrine for bradycardia/arrest not responding to ventilation and chest compressions. Vasopressin is a systemic vasoconstrictor and is more effective than epinephrine in postnatal piglets with cardiac arrest. There are no studies comparing vasopressin with epinephrine in newly born animal models with cardiac arrest induced by umbilical cord occlusion. Objective: To compare the effect of epinephrine and vasopressin on the incidence and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamics, plasma drug levels, and vasoreactivity in perinatal cardiac arrest. Design/Methods: Twenty-seven term fetal lambs in cardiac arrest induced by cord occlusion were instrumented and resuscitated following randomization to epinephrine or vasopressin through a low umbilical venous catheter. Results: Eight lambs achieved ROSC prior to medication. Epinephrine achieved ROSC in 7/10 lambs by 8 ± 2 min. Vasopressin achieved ROSC in 3/9 lambs by 13 ± 6 min. Plasma vasopressin levels in nonresponders were much lower than responders after the first dose. Vasopressin caused in vivo increased pulmonary blood flow and in vitro coronary vasoconstriction. Conclusions: Vasopressin resulted in lower incidence and longer time to ROSC compared to epinephrine in a perinatal model of cardiac arrest supporting the current recommendations for exclusive use of epinephrine in neonatal resuscitation.

Augmented-Medication CardioPulmonary Resuscitation Trials in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previously conducted physician-centered trials on the usefulness of vasopressin have yielded negative results; thus, patient-oriented trials have been warranted. We hypothesize that Augmented-Medication CardioPulmonary Resuscitation could be helpful for selected patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

METHODS

This is a double-blind, single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in the emergency department in a tertiary, university-affiliated hospital in Seoul, Korea. A total of 148 adults with non-traumatic OHCA who had initial diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 20 mm Hg via invasive arterial monitoring during the early cardiac compression period were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients received a dose of 40 IU of vasopressin or placebo with initial epinephrine. The primary endpoint was a sustained return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary endpoints were survival discharge, and neurologic outcomes at discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 180 included patients, 32 were excluded, and 148 were enrolled in the trial. A sustained return of spontaneous circulation was achieved by 27 patients (36.5%) in the vasopressin group and 24 patients (32.4%) in the control group (risk difference, 4.1%; P = .60). Survival discharge and good neurologic outcomes did not differ between groups. The trial group had significantly higher median DBPs during resuscitation than the control group (16.0 vs. 14.5 mm Hg, P < 0.01). There was no difference in end-tidal carbon dioxide, acidosis, and lactate levels at baseline, 10 min, and end-time.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with refractory vasodilatory shock in OHCA, administration of vasopressin, compared with placebo, did not significantly increase the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation.

Influence of the prehospital administered dosage of epinephrine on the plasma levels of catecholamines in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Aim

This study evaluated whether the prehospital administered dosage of epinephrine (Ep) influences the plasma levels of catecholamines in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods

This was a prospective, observational clinical study. Patients with OHCA transferred to our hospital between July 2014 and July 2017 were analyzed. The plasma levels of catecholamines were measured using blood samples obtained immediately upon arrival at the hospital and before the administration of Ep. Patients were divided into three groups based on the prehospital administered dosage of Ep: no prehospital administration (group Z); 1 mg of Ep (group O); and 2 mg of Ep (group T). The levels of catecholamines, as well as the conditions of resuscitation prior to and after arrival at the hospital were compared between the three groups.

Results

We analyzed 145 patients with OHCA (96, 38, and 11 patients in groups Z, O, and T, respectively). Group T exhibited the highest plasma levels of Ep with a statistically significant difference, however, there were no significant differences in the plasma levels of norepinephrine (Nep), dopamine (DOA) and vasopressin (ADH) among the three groups.

Conclusion

The prehospital administered dosage of Ep influences the plasma levels of Ep; however, it does not contribute to the plasma levels of Nep, DOA and ADH in patients with OHCA.

Relationship between the Plasma Levels of Catecholamines and Return of Spontaneous Circulation in Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Purpose

The dynamic state of epinephrine (Ep) in the plasma of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the plasma levels of catecholamines (such as epinephrine (Ep), norepinephrine (Nep), and dopamine) and vasopressin (antidiuretic hormone (ADH)) and the acquisition of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA patients.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational clinical study. Patients with OHCA transferred to our hospital between July 2014 and July 2017 were enrolled. The levels of catecholamines and ADH in the plasma were measured using blood samples immediately obtained on arrival at our hospital and before the administration of Ep. Patients in whom Ep was already administered prior to obtaining blood samples were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: with and without ROSC, that is, ROSC (+) and ROSC (−) groups, respectively. The plasma levels of these agents and the conditions of resuscitation were compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 96 patients with OHCA were analyzed. The ROSC (+) and ROSC (−) groups included 34 and 62 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in age, cause of cardiopulmonary arrest, and prehospital resuscitation time. The plasma levels of Ep and Nep were significantly lower in the ROSC (+) group than in the ROSC (−) group. However, there were no significant differences in the plasma levels of dopamine and ADH between the two groups.

Conclusion

Increased levels of Ep in the plasma may not be associated with the acquisition of ROSC in patients with OHCA.

Translation from animal studies of novel pharmacological therapies to clinical trials in cardiac arrest: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of new promising therapies to improve the dismal outcomes from cardiac arrest. The objectives of this study were: (1) To identify novel pharmacological therapies investigated in experimental animal studies and (2) to identify pharmacological therapies translated from experimental animal studies to clinical trials.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to first identify relevant experimental cardiac arrest animal models published within the last 20 years. Based on this, a list of interventions was created and a second search was performed to identify clinical trials testing one of these interventions. Data extraction was performed using standardised data extraction forms.

RESULTS

We identified 415 animal studies testing 190 different pharmacological interventions. The most commonly tested interventions were classified as vasopressors, anaesthetics/gases, or interventions aimed at molecular targets. We found 43 clinical trials testing 26 different interventions identified in the animal studies. Of these, 13 trials reported positive findings and 30 trials reported neutral findings with regards to the primary endpoint. No study showed harm of the intervention. Some interventions tested in human clinical trials, had previously been tested in animal studies without a positive effect on outcomes. A large number of animal studies was performed after publication of a clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

Numerous different pharmacological interventions have been tested in experimental animal models. Despite this only a limited number of these interventions have advanced to clinical trials, however several of the clinical trials tested interventions that were first tested in experimental animal models.

Updates in Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation

There are approximately 350,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and 200,000 in-hospital cardiac arrests annually in the United States, with survival rates of approximately 5% to 10% and 24%, respectively. The critical factors that have an impact on cardiac arrest survival include prompt recognition and activation of prehospital care, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and rapid defibrillation. Advanced life support protocols are continually refined to optimize intracardiac arrest management and improve survival with favorable neurologic outcome. This article focuses on current treatment recommendations for adult nontraumatic cardiac arrest, with emphasis on the latest evidence and controversies regarding intracardiac arrest management.

Early Administration of Adrenaline for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The use of adrenaline in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients is still controversial. This study aimed to determine the effects of early pre‐hospital adrenaline administration in OHCA patients.

Methods and Results

PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library database were searched from study inception to February 2019 to identify studies that reported OHCA patients who received adrenaline. The primary outcome was survival to discharge, and the secondary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation, favorable neurological outcome, and survival to hospital admission. A total of 574 392 patients were included from 24 studies. The use of early pre‐hospital adrenaline administration in OHCA patients was associated with a significant increase in survival to discharge (risk ratio [RR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.45–1.83; P<0.001) and return of spontaneous circulation (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.36–1.67; P<0.001), as well as a favorable neurological outcome (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.73–2.52; P<0.001). Patients with shockable rhythm cardiac arrest had a significantly higher rate of survival to discharge (RR, 5.86; 95% CI, 4.25–8.07; P<0.001) and more favorable neurological outcomes (RR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.90–8.97; P<0.001) than non‐shockable rhythm cardiac arrest patients.

Conclusions

Early pre‐hospital administration of adrenaline to OHCA patients might increase the survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and favorable neurological outcomes.

Registration

URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; Unique identifier: CRD42019130542.

Frequency of Medical Reversal Among Published Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)

OBJECTIVE

To characterize what proportion of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients experiencing cardiac arrest find that an established practice is ineffective or harmful, that is, a medical reversal.

METHODS

We reviewed a database of all published RCTs of cardiac arrest patient populations between 1995 and 2014. Articles were classified on the basis of whether they tested a new or existing therapy and whether results were positive or negative. A reversal was defined as a negative RCT of an established practice. Further review and categorization were performed to confirm that reversals were supported by subsequent systematic review, as well as to identify the type of medical practice studied in each reversal. This study was conducted from October 2017 to June 17, 2019.

RESULTS

We reviewed 92 original articles, 76 of which could be conclusively categorized. Of these, 18 (24%) articles examined a new medical practice, whereas 58 (76%) tested an established practice. A total of 18 (24%) studies had positive findings, whereas 58 (76%) reached a negative conclusion. Of the 58 articles testing existing standard of care, 44 (76%) reversed that practice, whereas 14 (24%) reaffirmed it.

CONCLUSION

Reversal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation practices is widespread. This investigation sheds new light on low-value practices and patterns of medical research and suggests that novel resuscitation practices have low pretest probability and should be empirically tested with rigorous trials before implementation.

2019 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights sections. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

2019 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: Use of Advanced Airways, Vasopressors, and Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Cardiac Arrest: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The fundamentals of cardiac resuscitation include the immediate provision of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation combined with rapid defibrillation (as appropriate). These mainstays of therapy set the groundwork for other possible interventions such as medications, advanced airways, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and post-cardiac arrest care, including targeted temperature management, cardiorespiratory support, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Since 2015, an increased number of studies have been published evaluating some of these interventions, requiring a reassessment of their use and impact on survival from cardiac arrest. This 2019 focused update to the American Heart Association advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of advanced airways, vasopressors, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. It includes revised recommendations for all 3 areas, including the choice of advanced airway devices and strategies during cardiac arrest (eg, bag-mask ventilation, supraglottic airway, or endotracheal intubation), the training and retraining required, the administration of standard-dose epinephrine, and the decisions involved in the application of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and its potential impact on cardiac arrest survival.

Trends Over Time in Drug Administration During Adult In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

OBJECTIVES

Clinical providers have access to a number of pharmacologic agents during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Few studies have explored medication administration patterns during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Herein, we examine trends in use of pharmacologic interventions during in-hospital cardiac arrest both over time and with respect to the American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline updates.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Hospitals contributing data to the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation database between 2001 and 2016.

PATIENTS

Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

INTERVENTIONS

The percentage of patients receiving epinephrine, vasopressin, amiodarone, lidocaine, atropine, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and dextrose each year were calculated in patients with shockable and nonshockable initial rhythms. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the annual adjusted odds of medication administration. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to assess change in atropine use after the 2010 American Heart Association guideline update.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 268,031 index in-hospital cardiac arrests were included. As compared to 2001, the adjusted odds ratio of receiving each medication in 2016 were epinephrine (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8), vasopressin (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), amiodarone (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.9-4.0), lidocaine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.2), atropine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.08), bicarbonate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-2.3), calcium (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3), magnesium (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.7; p < 0.0001), and dextrose (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.3-3.4). Following the 2010 American Heart Association guideline update, there was a downward step change in the intercept and slope change in atropine use (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing patterns during in-hospital cardiac arrest have changed significantly over time. Changes to American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines have had a rapid and substantial effect on the use of a number of commonly used in-hospital cardiac arrest medications.

Vasopressors During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

Several randomized controlled trials have compared adrenaline (epinephrine) with alternative therapies in patients with cardiac arrest with conflicting results. Recent observational studies suggest that adrenaline might increase return of spontaneous circulation but worsen neurologic outcome. We systematically compared all the vasopressors tested in randomized controlled trials in adult cardiac arrest patients in order to identify the treatment associated with the highest rate of return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and good neurologic outcome.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

PATIENTS

Adult patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

INTERVENTIONS

PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, and the Cochrane Central register were searched (up to April 1, 2017). We included all the randomized controlled trials comparing a vasopressor with any other therapy. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist approach was performed to identify the treatment associated with the highest likelihood of survival.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies randomizing 14,848 patients in 12 treatment groups were included. Only a combined treatment with adrenaline, vasopressin, and methylprednisolone was associated with increased likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation and survival with a good neurologic outcome compared with several other comparators, including adrenaline. Adrenaline alone was not associated with any significant difference in mortality and good neurologic outcome compared with any other comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

In randomized controlled trials assessing vasopressors in adults with cardiac arrest, only a combination of adrenaline, vasopressin, and methylprednisolone was associated with improved survival with a good neurologic outcome compared with any other drug or placebo, particularly in in-hospital cardiac arrest. There was no significant randomized evidence to support neither discourage the use of adrenaline during cardiac arrest.

Levels of Catecholamines in the Plasma of Patients with Cardiopulmonary Arrest

So far, there remains a controversy regarding the efficacy of epinephrine (Ep) in patients with cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA). In this study, we evaluated the importance of the plasma levels of catecholamines prior to the administration of Ep in patients with CPA. Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who were transferred to Gunma University Hospital were enrolled prospectively between July 2014 and July 2017. The levels of catecholamines [Ep, norepinephrine (NEp), and dopamine] and vasopressin (antidiuretic hormone) in the plasma were measured using blood samples of cardiogenic patients with OHCA not treated with Ep. Patients were divided into two groups: the return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC (+) ] group and the no return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC (-) ] group. The plasma levels of these agents and the conditions of resuscitation were compared between these two groups. 48 patients with cardiogenic CPA had not been treated with Ep prior to obtaining the blood samples. The ROSC (+) and ROSC (-) groups included 14 and 34 patients, respectively. The frequency of prehospital defibrillation was significantly higher in the ROSC (+) group. However, the prehospital resuscitation time was significantly shorter in the ROSC (+) group. Moreover, the levels of Ep and NEp in the plasma were significantly lower in the ROSC (+) group. The increased levels of Ep in the plasma may not be associated with the acquisition of ROSC in patients with cardiogenic CPA.

Adrenaline and vasopressin for cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Adrenaline and vasopressin are widely used to treat people with cardiac arrest, but there is uncertainty about the safety, effectiveness and the optimal dose.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether adrenaline or vasopressin, or both, administered during cardiac arrest, afford any survival benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and DARE from their inception to 8 May 2018, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2015 Advanced Life Support Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations. We also searched four trial registers on 5 September 2018 and checked the reference lists of the included studies and review papers to identify potential papers for review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised controlled trial comparing: standard-dose adrenaline versus placebo; standard-dose adrenaline versus high-dose adrenaline; and adrenaline versus vasopressin, in any setting, due to any cause of cardiac arrest, in adults and children. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials for review, assessed risks of bias and extracted data, resolving disagreements through re-examination of the trial reports and by discussion. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare dichotomous outcomes for clinical events. There were no continuous outcomes reported. We examined groups of trials for heterogeneity. We report the quality of evidence for each outcome, using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies (21,704 participants).Moderate-quality evidence found that adrenaline increased survival to hospital discharge compared to placebo (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.86; 2 studies, 8538 participants; an increase from 23 to 32 per 1000, 95% CI 25 to 42). We are uncertain about survival to hospital discharge for high-dose compared to standard-dose adrenaline (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.62; participants = 6274; studies = 10); an increase from 33 to 36 per 1000, 95% CI 24 to 53); standard-dose adrenaline versus vasopressin (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.85; 6 studies; 2511 participants; an increase from 72 to 90 per 1000, 95% CI 60 to 133); and standard-dose adrenaline versus vasopressin plus adrenaline (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.22; 3 studies; 3242 participants; a possible decrease from 24 to 18 per 1000, 95% CI 11 to 29), due to very low-quality evidence.Moderate-quality evidence found that adrenaline compared with placebo increased survival to hospital admission (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.76; 2 studies, 8489 participants; an increase from 83 to 209 per 1000, 95% CI 139 to 313). We are uncertain about survival to hospital admission when comparing standard-dose with high-dose adrenaline, due to very low-quality evidence. Vasopressin may improve survival to hospital admission when compared with standard-dose adrenaline (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.54; 3 studies, 1953 participants; low-quality evidence; an increase from 260 to 330 per 1000, 95% CI 270 to 400), and may make little or no difference when compared to standard-dose adrenaline plus vasopressin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 3 studies; 3249 participants; low-quality evidence; a decrease from 218 to 207 per 1000 (95% CI 181 to 236).There was no evidence that adrenaline (any dose) or vasopressin improved neurological outcomes.The rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was higher for standard-dose adrenaline versus placebo (RR 2.86, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.71; participants = 8663; studies = 3); moderate-quality evidence; an increase from 115 to 329 per 1000, 95% CI 254 to 427). We are uncertain about the effect on ROSC for the comparison of standard-dose versus high-dose adrenaline and standard-does adrenaline compared to vasopressin, due to very low-quality evidence. Standard-dose adrenaline may make little or no difference to ROSC when compared to standard-dose adrenaline plus vasopressin (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 3249 participants; low-quality evidence; a possible decrease from 299 to 290 per 1000, 95% CI 260 to 323).The source of funding was not stated in 11 of the 26 studies. The study drugs were provided by the manufacturer in four of the 26 studies, but neither drug represents a profitable commercial option. The other 11 studies were funded by organisations such as research foundations and government funding bodies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides moderate-quality evidence that standard-dose adrenaline compared to placebo improves return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge, but low-quality evidence that it did not affect survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Very low -quality evidence found that high-dose adrenaline compared to standard-dose adrenaline improved return of spontaneous circulation and survival to admission. Vasopressin compared to standard dose adrenaline improved survival to admission but not return of spontaneous circulation, whilst the combination of adrenaline and vasopressin compared with adrenaline alone had no effect on these outcomes. Neither standard dose adrenaline, high-dose adrenaline,vasopressin nor a combination of adrenaline and vasopressin improved survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Many of these studies were conducted more than 20 years ago. Treatment has changed in recent years, so the findings from older studies may not reflect current practice.

Drugs in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Managing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involves unique challenges, including delays in the initiation of advanced interventions and a limited number of trained personnel on scene. Recent out-of-hospital randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and metaanalyses provide key insights into what interventions are best proven to positively impact patient outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We review the literature on medications used in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and summarize evidence-based guidelines from the American Heart Association that form the basis for most emergency medical services cardiac arrest protocols across the United States.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature in 2015

PURPOSE

Recently published practice guidelines and research reports on pharmacotherapy in critical care patient populations are summarized.

SUMMARY

The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group is composed of over 50 experienced critical care pharmacists who evaluate 31 peer-reviewed journals monthly to identify literature pertaining to pharmacotherapy in critical care populations. Articles are chosen for summarization in a monthly CCPLU Group publication on the basis of applicability and relevance to clinical practice and strength of study design. From January to December 2015, a total of 121 articles were summarized; of these, 3 articles presenting clinical practice guidelines and 12 articles presenting original research findings were objectively selected for inclusion in this review based on their potential to change or reinforce current evidence-based practice. The reviewed guidelines address the management of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), adult advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) and post-cardiac arrest care, and the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). The reviewed research reports address topics such as nutrition in critically ill adults, administration of β-lactams for severe sepsis, anticoagulant selection in the context of continuous renal replacement therapy, early goal-directed therapy in septic shock, magnesium use for neuroprotection in acute stroke, and progesterone use in patients with traumatic brain injury.

CONCLUSION

Important recent additions to the critical care pharmacy literature include updated joint clinical practice guidelines on the management of spontaneous ICH, ACLS, and SVT.

Evidence on Adrenaline Use in Resuscitation and Its Relevance to Newborn Infants: A Non-Systematic Review

AIM

Guidelines for newborn resuscitation state that if the heart rate does not increase despite adequate ventilation and chest compressions, adrenaline administration should be considered. However, controversy exists around the safety and effectiveness of adrenaline in newborn resuscitation. The aim of this review was to summarise a selection of the current knowledge about adrenaline during resuscitation and evaluate its relevance to newborn infants.

METHODS

A search in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar until September 1, 2015, using search terms including adrenaline/epinephrine, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, death, severe brain injury, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and adrenaline versus vasopressin/placebo.

RESULTS

Adult data indicate that adrenaline improves the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) but not survival to hospital discharge. Newborn animal studies reported that adrenaline might be needed to achieve ROSC. Intravenous administration (10-30 μg/kg) is recommended; however, if there is no intravenous access, a higher endotracheal dose (50-100 μg/kg) is needed. The safety and effectiveness of intraosseous adrenaline remain undetermined. Early and frequent dosing does not seem to be beneficial. In fact, negative hemodynamic effects have been observed, especially with doses ≥30 μg/kg intravenously. Little is known about adrenaline in birth asphyxia and in preterm infants, but observations indicate that hemodynamics and neurological outcomes may be impaired by adrenaline administration in these conditions. However, a causal relationship between adrenaline administration and outcomes cannot be established from the few available retrospective studies. Alternative vasoconstrictors have been investigated, but the evidence is scarce.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed on the benefits and risks of adrenaline in asphyxia-induced bradycardia or cardiac arrest during perinatal transition.

Epinephrine in cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

evaluate the effectiveness of epinephrine used during cardiac arrest and its effect on the survival rates and neurological condition.

Method

systematic review of scientific literature with meta-analysis, using a random effects model. The following databases were used to research clinical trials and observational studies: Medline, Embase and Cochrane, from 2005 to 2015.

Results

when the Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) with administration of epinephrine was compared with ROSC without administration, increased rates were found with administration (OR 2.02. 95% CI 1.49 to 2.75; I2 = 95%). Meta-analysis showed an increase in survival to discharge or 30 days after administration of epinephrine (OR 1.23; 95% IC 1.05-1.44; I2=83%). Stratification by shockable and non-shockable rhythms showed an increase in survival for non-shockable rhythm (OR 1.52; 95% IC 1.29-1.78; I2=42%). When compared with delayed administration, the administration of epinephrine within 10 minutes showed an increased survival rate (OR 2.03; 95% IC 1.77-2.32; I2=0%).

Conclusion

administration of epinephrine appears to increase the rate of ROSC, but when compared with other therapies, no positive effect was found on survival rates of patients with favorable neurological status.

Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Current Review of the Literature that Informed the 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update

Out-of-Hospital cardiac arrest affects over 300,000 individuals in the US per year and is the third leading cause of death for Americans. Given the extent of this public health problem, investigations are ongoing to improve upon outcomes for patients who suffer cardiac arrest. In 2015, the American Heart Association issued an update to the 2010 Cardiopulmonary and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Guidelines.1 In this manuscript, we reviewed the literature that informed the major changes to the guidelines and present a concise review of the current literature that informs how patients who suffer a cardiac arrest are cared for in the pre-hospital, emergency department and in-hospital environment. Additionally, the new AHA guideline on Maternal Resuscitation will also be described.

Physiologic effect of repeated adrenaline (epinephrine) doses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the cath lab setting: A randomised porcine study

BACKGROUND

This porcine study was designed to explore the effects of repetitive intravenous adrenaline doses on physiologic parameters during CPR.

METHODS

Thirty-six adult pigs were randomised to four injections of: adrenaline 0.02 mg(kgdose)(-1), adrenaline 0.03 mg(kgdose)(-1) or saline control. The effect on systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure (CePP), end tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2), arterial oxygen saturation via pulse oximetry (SpO2), cerebral tissue oximetry (SctO2), were analysed immediately prior to each injection and at peak arterial systolic pressure and arterial blood gases were analysed at baseline and after 15 min.

RESULT

In the group given 0.02 mg(kgdose)(-1), there were increases in all arterial blood pressures at all 4 pressure peaks but CePP only increased significantly after peak 1. A decrease in ETCO2 following peak 1 and 2 was observed. SctO2 and SpO2 were lowered following injection 2 and beyond. In the group given a 0.03 mg(kgdose)(-1), all ABP's increased at the first 4 pressure peaks but CePP only following 3 pressure peaks. Lower ETCO2, SctO2 and SpO2 were seen at peak 1 and beyond. In the two adrenaline groups, pH and Base Excess were lower and lactate levels higher compared to baseline as well as compared to the control.

CONCLUSION

Repetitive intravenous adrenaline doses increased ABP's and to some extent also CePP, but significantly decreased organ and brain perfusion. The institutional protocol number: Malmö/Lund Committee for Animal Experiment Ethics, approval reference number: M 192-10.

[Which drugs are useful during resuscitation? Which are not?]

INTRODUCTION

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation represents a therapeutic challenge. Evidence-based guidelines, which were updated in 2015, give detailed advice on how to treat the patient.

METHODS

Basic life support consists of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (30 chest compressions interrupted briefly to provide to 2 ventilations) and, if ventricular tachyarrhythmia is present, urgent cardiac defibrillation. Administration of drugs is one of the aspects of advanced life support. Vasopressors (adrenaline, vasopressin) aim to optimize coronary and cerebral perfusion. Antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or lidocaine, when amiodarone is not available) are given during cardiac arrest to treat specific cardiac arrhythmias, mainly ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia.

CONCLUSION

However, even in current guidelines, there is growing ambivalence towards drug treatment in the setting of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This is mainly due to a paucity of robust clinical data. Most of the studies that have addressed the efficacy and safety of drugs during resuscitation are observational studies; however, a few small randomized controlled studies also exist. Recently, two large randomized controlled studies addressing the efficacy and safety of adrenaline versus placebo and amiodarone or lidocaine versus placebo have started. Both are currently recruiting patients. The hope is that the results of these studies will help to better define the role of drugs administered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Pharmacotherapy Considerations for the Management of Advanced Cardiac Life Support

Health care providers should be aware of the pharmacotherapy considerations in the American Heart Association's guidelines for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS). Current evidence does not suggest a reduction in mortality with ACLS medications; however, these medications can improve return of spontaneous circulation. Proper agent selection and dosing are imperative to maximize benefit and minimize harm. The latest guideline update included major changes to the ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia and pulseless electrical activity/asystole algorithms, which providers should adopt. It is critical that providers be prepared for post-code management. Health care professionals should remain abreast of changing evidence and guidelines.

Repeated epinephrine doses during prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation have limited effects on myocardial blood flow: a randomized porcine study

Background

In current guidelines, prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) mandates administration of repeated intravenous epinephrine (EPI) doses. This porcine study simulating a prolonged CPR-situation in the coronary catheterisation laboratory, explores the effect of EPI-administrations on coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), continuous coronary artery flow average peak velocity (APV) and amplitude spectrum area (AMSA).

Methods

Thirty-six pigs were randomized 1:1:1 to EPI 0.02 mg/kg/dose, EPI 0.03 mg/kg/dose or saline (control) in an experimental cardiac arrest (CA) model. During 15 minutes of mechanical chest compressions, four EPI/saline-injections were administered, and the effect on CPP, APV and AMSA were recorded. Comparisons were performed between the control and the two EPI-groups and a combination of the two EPI-groups, EPI-all.

Result

Compared to the control group, maximum peak of CPP (P_max) after injection 1 and 2 was significantly increased in the EPI-all group (p = 0.022, p = 0.016), in EPI 0.02-group after injection 2 and 3 (p = 0.023, p = 0.027) and in EPI 0.03-group after injection 1 (p = 0.013). At P_max, APV increased only after first injection in both the EPI-all and the EPI 0.03-group compared with the control group (p = 0.011, p = 0.018). There was no statistical difference of AMSA at any P_max. Seven out of 12 animals (58%) in each EPI-group versus 10 out of 12 (83%) achieved spontaneous circulation after CA.

Conclusion

In an experimental CA-CPR pig model repeated doses of intravenous EPI results in a significant increase in APV only after the first injection despite increments in CPP also during the following 2 injections indicating inappropriate changes in coronary vascular resistance during subsequent EPI administration.

Resuscitation after cardiac arrest in a septic porcine model: adding vasopressin vs epinephrine alone administration

Background

Vasopressin administration has been tested in cardiac arrest. However it has not been tested when cardiac arrest occurs in certain circumstances, as in sepsis, where it may have a major role. The aim of the study was to investigate survival after cardiac arrest in a septic porcine model compared with healthy animals and to explore the effectiveness of adding vasopressin vs epinephrine alone administration.

Methods

Thirty five healthy piglets of both genders were studied. The piglets were randomly assigned into three groups: group A (n = 8), group B (n = 14), group C (n = 13). Animals of groups B and C were given endotoxin to mimic a septic state before arrest. We applied the same resuscitation protocol to all pigs but we replaced the first dose of epinephrine with vasopressin in pigs of group C. Following surgical preparation and 30 min resting period, baseline measurements were recorded. In order to assess tissue oxygenation, we implemented Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) with the vascular occlusion technique (VOT) in thirteen lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated animals, occluding abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava. Afterwards, LPS (100 μg/kg) was infused in a 30 min period to animals of groups B and C and normal saline to group A. New NIRS measurements were obtained again. Subsequently, we provoked ventricular fibrillation (VF). After 3 min of untreated VF, open chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed manually. Primary end point was the restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

Results

The chance of ROSC for the groups A, B and C was 75%, 35.7%, and 30.7% respectively. A significant difference in ROSC was established between septic (group B + C) and non septic piglets (group A) (P = 0.046). Vasopressin administration had no effect in outcome. LPS administration decreased oxygen consumption rate, as assessed by NIRS, in peripheral tissues (22.6 ± 7.2. vs 18.5 ± 7.2, P = 0.07).

Conclusion

Septic piglets have fewer chances to survive after cardiac arrest. No difference in outcome was observed when the first dose of epinephrine was replaced with vasopressin to treat cardiac arrest in the LPS-treated animals.

Efficacy of vasopressin during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in adult patients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Experimental and animal studies suggested that vasopressin may have a favorable survival profile during CPR. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of vasopressin in adult cardiac patients.

METHODOLOGY

Meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of vasopressin containing regimen during CPR in adult cardiac arrest population with an epinephrine only regimen.

RESULTS

A total of 6120 patients from 10 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Vasopressin use during CPR has no beneficial impact in an unselected population in ROSC [OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93, 1.52], survival to hospital discharge [OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89, 1.43], survival to hospital admission [OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99, 1.27] and favorable neurological outcome [OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75, 1.38]. ROSC in "in-hospital" cardiac arrest setting [OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.08, 4.47] is higher patients receiving vasopressin. Subgroup analyses revealed equal or higher chance of ROSC [OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.00, 4.61], higher possibility of survival to hospital discharge [OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.34, 4.27] and favorable neurological outcome [OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.39, 4.79] when vasopressin was used as repeated boluses of 4-5 times titrating desired effects during CPR.

CONCLUSION

ROSC in "in-hospital" cardiac arrest patients is significantly better when vasopressin was used. A subgroup analysis of this meta-analysis found that ROSC, survival to hospital admission and discharge and favorable neurological outcome may be better when vasopressin was used as repeated boluses of 4-5 times titrated to desired effects; however, overall no beneficial effect was noted in unselected cardiac arrest population.

Experimental cardiac arrest treatment with adrenaline, vasopressin, or placebo

BACKGROUND

The effect of vasoconstrictors in prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has not been fully clarified.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate adrenaline and vasopressin pressure effect, and observe the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled study. After seven minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation, pigs received two minutes cycles of CPR. Defibrillation was attempted (4 J/kg) once at 9 minutes, and after every cycle if a shockable rhythm was present, after what CPR was immediately resumed. At 9 minutes and every five minutes intervals, 0.02 mg/kg (n = 12 pigs) adrenaline, or 0.4 U/kg (n = 12) vasopressin, or 0.2 mL/kg (n = 8) 0.9% saline solution was administered. CPR continued for 30 minutes or until the ROSC.

RESULTS

Coronary perfusion pressure increased to about 20 mmHg in the three groups. Following vasoconstrictors doses, pressure level reached 35 mmHg versus 15 mmHg with placebo (p < 0.001). Vasopressin effect remained at 15-20 mmHg after three doses versus zero with adrenaline or placebo. ROSC rate differed (p = 0.031) among adrenaline (10/12), vasopressin (6/12), and placebo (2/8). Time-to-ROSC did not differ (16 minutes), nor the number of doses previously received (one or two). There was no difference between vasoconstrictors, but against placebo, only adrenaline significantly increased the ROSC rate (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The vasoconstrictors initial pressure effect was equivalent and vasopressin maintained a late effect at prolonged resuscitation. Nevertheless, when compared with placebo, only adrenaline significantly increased the ROSC rate.