BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of vasopressin versus epinephrine, and both drugs combined, in a porcine model of simulated adult asphyxial cardiac arrest. METHODS AND RESULTS: At approximately 7 minutes after the endotracheal tube had been clamped, cardiac arrest was present in 24 pigs and remained untreated for another 8 minutes. After 4 minutes of basic life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation, pigs were randomly assigned to receive, every 5 minutes, either epinephrine (45, 200, or 200 microgram/kg; n=6); vasopressin (0.4, 0.8, or 0.8 U/kg; n=6); or epinephrine combined with vasopressin (high-dose epinephrine/vasopressin combination, microgram/kg and U/kg: 45/0.4, 200/0.8, or 200/0.8; n=6; optimal-dose epinephrine/vasopressin combination, 45/0.4, 45/0.8, or 45/0.8; n=6). Mean+/-SEM coronary perfusion pressure was significantly (P<0.05) higher 90 seconds after high- or optimal-dose epinephrine/vasopressin combinations versus vasopressin alone and versus epinephrine alone (37+/-10 versus 25+/-7 versus 19+/-8 versus 6+/-3 mm Hg; 42+/-6 versus 40+/-5 versus 21+/-5 versus 14+/-6 mm Hg; and 39+/-6 versus 37+/-4 versus 9+/-3 versus 12+/-4 mm Hg, respectively). Six of 6 high-dose, 6 of 6 optimal-dose vasopressin/epinephrine combination, 0 of 6 vasopressin, and 1 of 6 epinephrine pigs had return of spontaneous circulation (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine combined with vasopressin, but not epinephrine or vasopressin alone, maintained elevated coronary perfusion pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and resulted in significantly higher survival rates in this adult porcine asphyxial model.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of vasopressin versus epinephrine, and both drugs combined, in a porcine model of simulated adult asphyxial cardiac arrest. METHODS AND RESULTS: At approximately 7 minutes after the endotracheal tube had been clamped, cardiac arrest was present in 24 pigs and remained untreated for another 8 minutes. After 4 minutes of basic life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation, pigs were randomly assigned to receive, every 5 minutes, either epinephrine (45, 200, or 200 microgram/kg; n=6); vasopressin (0.4, 0.8, or 0.8 U/kg; n=6); or epinephrine combined with vasopressin (high-dose epinephrine/vasopressin combination, microgram/kg and U/kg: 45/0.4, 200/0.8, or 200/0.8; n=6; optimal-dose epinephrine/vasopressin combination, 45/0.4, 45/0.8, or 45/0.8; n=6). Mean+/-SEM coronary perfusion pressure was significantly (P<0.05) higher 90 seconds after high- or optimal-dose epinephrine/vasopressin combinations versus vasopressin alone and versus epinephrine alone (37+/-10 versus 25+/-7 versus 19+/-8 versus 6+/-3 mm Hg; 42+/-6 versus 40+/-5 versus 21+/-5 versus 14+/-6 mm Hg; and 39+/-6 versus 37+/-4 versus 9+/-3 versus 12+/-4 mm Hg, respectively). Six of 6 high-dose, 6 of 6 optimal-dose vasopressin/epinephrine combination, 0 of 6 vasopressin, and 1 of 6 epinephrinepigs had return of spontaneous circulation (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Epinephrine combined with vasopressin, but not epinephrine or vasopressin alone, maintained elevated coronary perfusion pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and resulted in significantly higher survival rates in this adult porcine asphyxial model.
Authors: Manoel Ângelo Gomes Palácio; Edison Ferreira de Paiva; Luciano Cesar Pontes de Azevedo; Ari Timerman Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: A C Krismer; V Wenzel; W G Voelckel; P Innerhofer; K H Stadlbauer; T Haas; M Pavlic; H J Sparr; K H Lindner; A Koenigsrainer Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 1.041
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: Nan Zhang; Xiu-Xian Zang; Ning Dong; Fang Liu; Shao-Kun Wang; H E Yan; DA-Hai Xu; Xiao-Liang Liu; L I Pang Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 2.447
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