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

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.

Effects of Methylprednisolone on Myocardial Function and Microcirculation in Post-resuscitation: A Rat Model

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that inflammation and impaired microcirculation are key factors in post-resuscitation syndromes. Here, we investigated whether methylprednisolone (MP) could improve myocardial function and microcirculation by suppressing the systemic inflammatory response following cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in a rat model of cardiac arrest (CA).

Methods

Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to (1) sham, (2) control, and (3) drug groups. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and then followed by CPR. The rats were infused with either MP or vehicle at the start of CPR. Myocardial function and microcirculation were assessed at baseline and after the restoration of spontaneous circulation. Blood samples were drawn at baseline and 60-min post-resuscitation to assess serum cytokine (TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6) levels.

Results

Myocardial function [estimated by the ejection fraction (EF), myocardial performance index (MPI), and cardiac output (CO)] improved post-ROSC in the MP group compared with those in the control group (p < 0.05). MP decreased the levels of the aforementioned pro-inflammatory cytokines and alleviated cerebral, sublingual, and intestinal microcirculation compared with the control (p < 0.05). A negative correlation emerged between the cytokine profile and microcirculatory blood flow.

Conclusion

MP treatment reduced post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction, inhibited pro-inflammatory cytokines, and improved microcirculation in the initial recovery phase in a CA and resuscitation animal model. Therefore, MP could be a potential clinical target for CA patients in the early phase after CPR to alleviate myocardial dysfunction and improve prognosis.

The effect of epinephrine and methylprednisolone on cardiac arrest patients

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

•

CPR involves organized procedures performed on patients with cardiac arrest.

•

CPR method and techniques can determine neurological outcomes of the patients.

•

Glucocorticoid, methylprednisolone does not reduce the risk of neurological complications.

The Effect of Vasopressin and Methylprednisolone on Return of Spontaneous Circulation in Patients with In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac arrest is often fatal if not treated immediately by cardiopulmonary resuscitation to restore a normal heart rhythm and spontaneous circulation. We aim to evaluate the clinical benefits of vasopressin and methylprednisolone versus placebo for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar from inception to October 17, 2021, by using search terms included "Vasopressin" AND "Methylprednisolone" AND "Cardiac arrest".

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vasopressin and methylprednisolone to placebo. The main outcomes were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of three RCTs, with a total of 869 patients, were included. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our result showed an increase in ROSC in patients who received vasopressin and methylprednisolone (RR = 1.32; 95% CI = [1.18, 1.47], p < 0.00001) when compared with the placebo group. However, there was no difference between both groups regarding survival to hospital discharge (RR = 1.76; 95% CI = [0.68, 4.56], p= 0.25).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The current guidelines recommend epinephrine for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Our meta-analysis updates clinicians about using vasopressin and methylprednisolone besides epinephrine, providing them with the best available evidence in managing patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, administration of vasopressin and methylprednisolone besides epinephrine is associated with increased ROSC compared with placebo and epinephrine. However, high-quality RCTs are necessary before drawing a firm conclusion regarding the efficacy of vasopressin and methylprednisolone for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Drug use during adult advanced cardiac life support: An overview of reviews

AIM

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to summarize the ever-growing evidence on drug use during advanced life support.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane central register of controlled trials and Web of science for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on drug use during advanced life support from inception to March, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed all abstracts for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Corrected covered areas were calculated from publication citation matrices to account for potential risk of bias. Data were graphically represented using forest plots.

RESULTS

Twenty-two head-to-head drug comparisons from 47 included articles were analysed. Adrenaline significantly increases the incidence of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge, but not the incidence of neurological intact survival. Vasopressin alone or in combination with adrenaline is not superior to adrenaline alone. There is a trend favouring lidocaine over amiodarone in shockable cardiac arrest. The risk of bias assessment of included studies ranged from very low to very high and the overlap between articles was moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with the guidelines, we currently suggest that a standard dose of adrenaline should be administered during resuscitation, however, studies assessing lower doses of adrenaline are pressing. There is no rationale for the combination of vasopressin and adrenaline or vasopressin alone instead of adrenaline. In addition, lidocaine is a valuable alternative for amiodarone and maybe even preferable for shockable cardiac arrest. However more research is necessary.

Comparing Drugs for Out-of-hospital, Shock-refractory Cardiac Arrest: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of medications used in out-of-hospital, shock-refractory cardiac arrest remains controversial. This study aims to compare the treatment outcomes of medications for out-of-hospital, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT).

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of participants older than eight years old who had atraumatic, out-of-hospital, shock-refractory VF/pVT in which at least one studied group received a medication. We conducted a database search on October 28, 2019, that included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Citations of relevant meta-analyses were also searched. We performed frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine the comparisons. The outcomes were analyzed by using odds ratios (OR) and compared to placebo. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes included the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and the neurological outcome at discharge. We ranked all outcomes using surface under the cumulative ranking score.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies with 6,582 participants. The NMA of 20 comparisons included 12 medications and placebo. Only norepinephrine showed a significant increase of ROSC (OR = 8.91, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-42.29). Amiodarone significantly improved survival to hospital admission (OR = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.01-2.32). The ROSC and survival-to-hospital admission data were significantly heterogeneous with the I2 of 55.1% and 59.1%, respectively. This NMA satisfied the assumption of transitivity.

CONCLUSION

No medication was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge from out-of-hospital, shock-refractory cardiac arrest. For the secondary outcomes, norepinephrine was associated with improved ROSC and amiodarone was associated with an increased likelihood of survival to hospital admission in the NMA.

The Potential Risk Factors for Mortality in Patients After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Multicenter Study

Background and Purpose: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) has high mortality rate, which needs more research. This multi-center study aims to evaluate potential risk factors for mortality in patients after IHCA.

Methods: Data for this study retrospectively enrolled IHCA patients from 14 regional hospitals, two district hospitals, and five medical centers between 2013 June and 2018 December. The study enrolled 5,306 patients and there were 2,871 patients in subgroup of intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency room (ER), and 1,894 patients in subgroup of general wards.

Results: As for overall IHCA patients, odds ratio (OR) for mortality was higher in older patients (OR = 1.69; 95% CI:1.33–2.14), those treated with ventilator (OR = 1.79; 95% CI:1.36–2.38) and vasoactive agents (OR = 1.88; 95% CI:1.45–2.46). Whereas, better survival was reported in IHCA patients with initial rhythm as ventricular tachycardia (OR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21–0.50) and ventricular fibrillation (OR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.16–0.42). With regard to ICU and ER subgroup, there was no mortality difference among different nursing shifts, whereas for patients in general wards, overnight shift (OR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.07–3.11) leads to poor outcome.

Conclusion: For IHCA patients, old age, receiving ventilator support and vasoactive agents reported poor survival. Overnight shift had poor survival for IHCA patients in general wards, despite no significance in overall and ICU/ER subgroups.

Effects of epinephrine for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Our objective is to assess the effects of epinephrine for out of hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND

Cardiac arrest was the most serious medical incidents with an estimated incidence in the United States of 95.7 per 100,000 person years. Though epinephrine improved coronary and cerebral perfusion, improving a return of spontaneous circulation, potentially harmful effects on the heart lead to greater myocardial oxygen demand. Concerns about the effect of epinephrine for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were controversial and called for a higher argument to determine whether the effects of epinephrine is safe and effective for shor and long terms outcomes.

METHOD

Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis. In the all interest outcomes blow we take the full advantage of STATA to assess, the main measure is Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence, the publication bias are assessed by Egger Test.

RESULT

In current systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating epinephrine for out of hospital cardiac arrest, we found that epinephrine was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of ROSC (RR = 3.05, I = 23.1%, P = .0001) and survival to hospital discharge (RR = 1.40, I = 36.3%, P = .008) compared with non-adrenaline administration. Conversely, epinephrine did not increase CPC 1 or 2 (RR = 1.15, I = 40.5%, P = .340) and hospital admission (RR = 2.07, I = 88.2%, P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in this systematic review and meta-analysis involving studies, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher likelihood of survival to hospital discharge and ROSC than the non-epinephrine administration, but, there was no significant between group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome.

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.

Evidence for vasopressors during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in newborn infants

An estimated 0.1% of term infants and up to 15% of preterm infants (2-3 million worldwide) need extensive resuscitation, defined as chest compression and 100% oxygen with or without epinephrine in the delivery room. Despite these interventions, infants receiving extensive resuscitation in the DR have a high incidence of mortality and neurologic morbidity. Successful resuscitation from neonatal cardiac arrest requires the delivery of high-quality chest compression using the most effective vasopressor with the optimal dose, timing, and route of administration during CPR. Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend administration of epinephrine once CPR has started at a dose of 0.01-0.03 mg/kg preferably given intravenously, with repeated doses every 3-5 min until return of spontaneous circulation. This review examines the current evidence for epinephrine and alternative vasopressors during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.