Epinephrine versus norepinephrine in cardiac arrest patients with post-resuscitation shock
Purpose Whether epinephrine or norepinephrine is preferable as the continuous intravenous vasopressor used to treat post-resuscitation shock is unclear. We assessed outcomes of patients with post-resuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to whether the continuous intravenous...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Intensive care medicine 2022-03, Vol.48 (3), p.300-310 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose
Whether epinephrine or norepinephrine is preferable as the continuous intravenous vasopressor used to treat post-resuscitation shock is unclear. We assessed outcomes of patients with post-resuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to whether the continuous intravenous vasopressor used was epinephrine or norepinephrine.
Methods
We conducted an observational multicenter study of consecutive patients managed in 2011–2018 for post-resuscitation shock. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were cardiovascular hospital mortality and unfavorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 3–5). A multivariate regression analysis and a propensity score analysis were performed, as well as several sensitivity analyses.
Results
Of the 766 patients included in five hospitals, 285 (37%) received epinephrine and 481 (63%) norepinephrine. All-cause hospital mortality was significantly higher in the epinephrine group (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.4–4.7;
P
= 0.002). Cardiovascular hospital mortality was also higher with epinephrine (aOR 5.5; 95%CI 3.0–10.3;
P
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0342-4642 1432-1238 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00134-021-06608-7 |