26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vasopressin improves outcome in out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia: a observational cohort study

      research-article
      1 , 2 ,
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          An increasing body of evidence from laboratory and clinical studies suggests that vasopressin may represent a promising alternative vasopressor for use during cardiac arrest and resuscitation. Current guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend the use of adrenaline (epinephrine), with vasopressin considered only as a secondary option because of limited clinical data.

          Method

          The present study was conducted in a prehospital setting and included patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia undergoing one of three treatments: group I patients received only adrenaline 1 mg every 3 minutes; group II patients received one intravenous dose of arginine vasopressine (40 IU) after three doses of 1 mg epinephrine; and patients in group III received vasopressin 40 IU as first-line therapy. The cause of cardiac arrest (myocardial infarction or other cause) was established for each patient in hospital.

          Results

          A total of 109 patients who suffered nontraumatic cardiac arrest were included in the study. The rates of restoration of spontaneous circulation and subsequent hospital admission were higher in vasopressin-treated groups (23/53 [45%] in group I, 19/31 [61%] in group II and 17/27 [63%] in group III). There were also higher 24-hour survival rates among vasopressin-treated patients ( P < 0.05), and more vasopressin-treated patients were discharged from hospital (10/51 [20%] in group I, 8/31 [26%] in group II and 7/27 [26%] group III; P = 0.21). Especially in the subgroup of patients with myocardial infarction as the underlying cause of cardiac arrest, the hospital discharge rate was significantly higher in vasopressin-treated patients ( P < 0.05). Among patients who were discharged from hospital, we found no significant differences in neurological status between groups.

          Conclusion

          The greater 24-hour survival rate in vasopressin-treated patients suggests that consideration of combined vasopressin and adrenaline is warranted for the treatment of refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. This is especially the case for those patients with myocardial infarction, for whom vasopressin treatment is also associated with a higher hospital discharge rate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comparison of vasopressin and epinephrine for out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

          Vasopressin is an alternative to epinephrine for vasopressor therapy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but clinical experience with this treatment has been limited. We randomly assigned adults who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive two injections of either 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine, followed by additional treatment with epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission, and the secondary end point was survival to hospital discharge. A total of 1219 patients underwent randomization; 33 were excluded because of missing study-drug codes. Among the remaining 1186 patients, 589 were assigned to receive vasopressin and 597 to receive epinephrine. The two treatment groups had similar clinical profiles. There were no significant differences in the rates of hospital admission between the vasopressin group and the epinephrine group either among patients with ventricular fibrillation (46.2 percent vs. 43.0 percent, P=0.48) or among those with pulseless electrical activity (33.7 percent vs. 30.5 percent, P=0.65). Among patients with asystole, however, vasopressin use was associated with significantly higher rates of hospital admission (29.0 percent, vs. 20.3 percent in the epinephrine group; P=0.02) and hospital discharge (4.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.04). Among 732 patients in whom spontaneous circulation was not restored with the two injections of the study drug, additional treatment with epinephrine resulted in significant improvement in the rates of survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge in the vasopressin group, but not in the epinephrine group (hospital admission rate, 25.7 percent vs. 16.4 percent; P=0.002; hospital discharge rate, 6.2 percent vs. 1.7 percent; P=0.002). Cerebral performance was similar in the two groups. The effects of vasopressin were similar to those of epinephrine in the management of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless electrical activity, but vasopressin was superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole. Vasopressin followed by epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine alone in the treatment of refractory cardiac arrest. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Science Review: Vasopressin and the cardiovascular system part 1 – receptor physiology

            Vasopressin is emerging as a rational therapy for vasodilatory shock states. Unlike other vasoconstrictor agents, vasopressin also has vasodilatory properties. The goal of the present review is to explore the vascular actions of vasopressin. In part 1 of the review we discuss structure, signaling pathways, and tissue distributions of the classic vasopressin receptors, namely V1 vascular, V2 renal, V3 pituitary and oxytocin receptors, and the P2 class of purinoreceptors. Knowledge of the function and distribution of vasopressin receptors is key to understanding the seemingly contradictory actions of vasopressin on the vascular system. In part 2 of the review we discuss the effects of vasopressin on vascular smooth muscle and the heart, and we summarize clinical studies of vasopressin in shock states.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epinephrine increases the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction.

              Epinephrine has been the mainstay for cardiac resuscitation for more than 30 years. Its vasopressor effect by which it increases coronary perfusion pressure is likely to favor initial resuscitation. Its beta-adrenergic action, however, may have detrimental effects on postresuscitation myocardial function when administered before resuscitation because it increases myocardial oxygen consumption. In the present study, our focus was on postresuscitation effects of epinephrine when this adrenergic agent was administered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Postresuscitation myocardial functions were compared with those of a selective alpha-adrenergic agent, phenylephrine, when epinephrine was combined with a beta 1-adrenergic blocking agent, esmolol, and saline placebo. Ventricular fibrillation was induced in 40 Sprague-Dawley rats. Mechanical ventilation and precordial compression was initiated either 4 or 8 minutes after the start of ventricular fibrillation. The adrenergic drug or saline placebo was administered as a bolus after 4 minutes of precordial compression. Defibrillation was attempted 4 minutes later. Left ventricular pressure, dP/dt40, and negative dP/dt were continuously measured for an interval of 240 minutes after successful cardiac resuscitation. Except for saline placebo, comparable increases in coronary perfusion pressure were observed after each drug intervention. The number of countershocks required for restoration of spontaneous circulation was significantly greater for epinephrine-treated animals (10 +/- 8) when compared with phenylephrine-treated animals (1.8 +/- 0.4, P < .01) and with animals treated with epinephrine combined with esmolol (1.6 +/- 0.9, P < .01). After resuscitation, dP/dt40 and negative dP/dt were significantly decreased and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure was significantly increased in each animal when compared with prearrest levels. However, the greatest impairment followed epinephrine, and this was associated with significantly greater heart rate and the shortest interval of postresuscitation survival of 8 +/- 4 hours, whereas placebo controls survived for 12 +/- 11 hours. Phenylephrine-treated animals survived for 41 +/- 10 hours (P < .01 versus epinephrine), and animals that received a combination of epinephrine and esmolol survived for 35 +/- 11 hours (P < .01 versus epinephrine). When the duration of untreated cardiac arrest was increased from 4 to 8 minutes, the severity of postresuscitation left ventricular dysfunction was magnified, but disproportionate decreases in postresuscitation survival were again observed with placebo and epinephrine when compared with alpha-adrenergic agonists. In an established rodent model after resuscitation following cardiac arrest, epinephrine significantly increased the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction and decreased duration of survival. More selective alpha-adrenergic agonist or blockade of beta 1-adrenergic actions of epinephrine reduced postresuscitation myocardial impairment and prolonged survival.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2006
                6 January 2006
                : 10
                : 1
                : R13
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Assistant Professor, Head of the Department, Centre for Emergency Medicine Maribor, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
                [2 ]Medical Doctor, Centre for Emergency Medicine Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
                Article
                cc3967
                10.1186/cc3967
                1550861
                16420660
                21331b28-6440-4004-900d-1eacb4b79795
                Copyright © 2006 Grmec and Mally; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 August 2005
                : 24 October 2005
                : 12 December 2005
                Categories
                Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article