OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the effects of vasopressin vs. epinephrine vs. the combination of epinephrine with vasopressin on vital organ blood flow and return of spontaneous circulation in a pediatric porcine model of asphyxial arrest. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized laboratory investigation using an established porcine model for measurement of hemodynamic variables, organ blood flow, blood gases, and return of spontaneous circulation. SETTING: University hospital laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighteen piglets weighing 8-11 kg. INTERVENTIONS: Asphyxial cardiac arrest was induced by clamping the endotracheal tube. After 8 mins of cardiac arrest and 8 mins of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a bolus dose of either 0.8 units/kg vasopressin (n = 6), 200 microg/kg epinephrine (n = 6), or a combination of 45 microg/kg epinephrine with 0.8 units/kg vasopressin (n = 6) was administered in a randomized manner. Defibrillation was attempted 6 mins after drug administration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean +/- SEM coronary perfusion pressure, before and 2 mins after drug administration, was 13 +/- 2 and 23 +/- 6 mm Hg in the vasopressin group; 14 +/- 2 and 31 +/- 4 mm Hg in the epinephrine group; and 13 +/- 1 and 33 +/- 6 mm Hg in the epinephrine-vasopressin group, respectively (p = NS). At the same time points, mean +/- SEM left ventricular myocardial blood flow was 44 +/- 31 and 44 +/- 25 mL x min-(1) x 100 g(-1) in the vasopressin group; 30 +/- 18 and 233 +/- 61 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1) in the epinephrine group; and 36 +/- 10 and 142 +/- 57 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1) in the epinephrine-vasopressin group (p < .01 epinephrine vs. vasopressin; p < .02 epinephrine-vasopressin vs. vasopressin). Total cerebral blood flow trended toward higher values after epinephrine-vasopressin (60 +/- 19 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1)) than after vasopressin (36 +/- 17 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1)) or epinephrine alone (31 +/- 7 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1); p = .07, respectively). One of six vasopressin, six of six epinephrine, and four of six epinephrine-vasopressin-treated animals had return of spontaneous circulation (p < .01, vasopressin vs. epinephrine). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of epinephrine, either alone or in combination with vasopressin, significantly improved left ventricular myocardial blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Return of spontaneous circulation was significantly more likely in epinephrine-treated pigs than in animals resuscitated with vasopressin alone.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the effects of vasopressin vs. epinephrine vs. the combination of epinephrine with vasopressin on vital organ blood flow and return of spontaneous circulation in a pediatric porcine model of asphyxial arrest. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized laboratory investigation using an established porcine model for measurement of hemodynamic variables, organ blood flow, blood gases, and return of spontaneous circulation. SETTING: University hospital laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighteen piglets weighing 8-11 kg. INTERVENTIONS:Asphyxial cardiac arrest was induced by clamping the endotracheal tube. After 8 mins of cardiac arrest and 8 mins of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a bolus dose of either 0.8 units/kg vasopressin (n = 6), 200 microg/kg epinephrine (n = 6), or a combination of 45 microg/kg epinephrine with 0.8 units/kg vasopressin (n = 6) was administered in a randomized manner. Defibrillation was attempted 6 mins after drug administration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean +/- SEM coronary perfusion pressure, before and 2 mins after drug administration, was 13 +/- 2 and 23 +/- 6 mm Hg in the vasopressin group; 14 +/- 2 and 31 +/- 4 mm Hg in the epinephrine group; and 13 +/- 1 and 33 +/- 6 mm Hg in the epinephrine-vasopressin group, respectively (p = NS). At the same time points, mean +/- SEM left ventricular myocardial blood flow was 44 +/- 31 and 44 +/- 25 mL x min-(1) x 100 g(-1) in the vasopressin group; 30 +/- 18 and 233 +/- 61 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1) in the epinephrine group; and 36 +/- 10 and 142 +/- 57 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1) in the epinephrine-vasopressin group (p < .01 epinephrine vs. vasopressin; p < .02 epinephrine-vasopressin vs. vasopressin). Total cerebral blood flow trended toward higher values after epinephrine-vasopressin (60 +/- 19 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1)) than after vasopressin (36 +/- 17 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1)) or epinephrine alone (31 +/- 7 mL x min(-1) x 100 g(-1); p = .07, respectively). One of six vasopressin, six of six epinephrine, and four of six epinephrine-vasopressin-treated animals had return of spontaneous circulation (p < .01, vasopressin vs. epinephrine). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of epinephrine, either alone or in combination with vasopressin, significantly improved left ventricular myocardial blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Return of spontaneous circulation was significantly more likely in epinephrine-treated pigs than in animals resuscitated with vasopressin alone.
Authors: Jesús López-Herce; Bárbara Fernández; Javier Urbano; Santiago Mencía; Maria J Solana; Jimena del Castillo; Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez; Jose M Bellón Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: J P Nolan; C D Deakin; J Soar; B W Böttiger; G Smith; M Baubin; B Dirks; V Wenzel Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Shawn D Hicks; David D Salcido; Eric S Logue; Brian P Suffoletto; Philip E Empey; Samuel M Poloyac; Donald R Miller; Clifton W Callaway; James J Menegazzi Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Melissa A Wasilewski; Valerie D Myers; Fabio A Recchia; Arthur M Feldman; Douglas G Tilley Journal: Cell Signal Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 4.315
Authors: Douglas G Tilley; Weizhong Zhu; Valerie D Myers; Larry A Barr; Erhe Gao; Xue Li; Jianliang Song; Rhonda L Carter; Catherine A Makarewich; Daohai Yu; Constantine D Troupes; Laurel A Grisanti; Ryan C Coleman; Walter J Koch; Steven R Houser; Joseph Y Cheung; Arthur M Feldman Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alexis A Topjian; Robert A Berg; Joost J L M Bierens; Christine M Branche; Robert S Clark; Hans Friberg; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Michael Holzer; Laurence M Katz; Johannes T A Knape; Patrick M Kochanek; Vinay Nadkarni; Johannes G van der Hoeven; David S Warner Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Julia C Slovis; Ryan W Morgan; William P Landis; Anna L Roberts; Alexandra M Marquez; Constantine D Mavroudis; Yuxi Lin; Tiffany Ko; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Todd J Kilbaugh Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2020-11-25
Authors: Namdar Manouchehri; David L Bigam; Thomas Churchill; David Rayner; Chloe Joynt; Po-Yin Cheung Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 3.756