Vasopressin for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med

Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Odessa, TX 79763, USA.
Archives of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 17.33). 02/2005; 165(1):17-24. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.1.17
Source: PubMed


The current guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend vasopressin as an alternative to epinephrine for the treatment of adult shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of vasopressin in the treatment of cardiac arrest.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1519 patients with cardiac arrest from 5 randomized controlled trials that compared vasopressin and epinephrine. Two reviewers conducted a systematic search of electronic databases, complemented by hand searches, to identify randomized trials. Reviewers evaluated the quality of the trials, extracted data, and derived pooled estimates using a random-effects model.
There were no statistically significant differences between the vasopressin and epinephrine groups in failure of return of spontaneous circulation (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.12), death before hospital admission (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.39), death within 24 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.38-1.43), death before hospital discharge (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.05), or combination of number of deaths and neurologically impaired survivors (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.94-1.07). Subgroup analysis based on initial cardiac rhythm showed no statistically significant difference in the rate of death before hospital discharge between the vasopressin and epinephrine groups in any of the 3 subgroups: ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.19), pulseless electrical activity (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.10), or asystole (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-1.00).
There is no clear advantage of vasopressin over epinephrine in the treatment of cardiac arrest. Guidelines for Advanced Cardiac Life Support should not recommend vasopressin in resuscitation protocols until more solid human data on its superiority are available.

Download full-text


Available from: Koko Aung, Oct 10, 2015
1 Follower
57 Reads
  • Source
    • "Three randomised controlled trials [28–30] and a meta-analysis [31] demonstrated no difference in outcomes (ROSC, survival to hospital discharge, or neurological outcome) between vasopressin and epinephrine used as first line vasopressor in cardiac arrest. Similarly, there was no evidence of harm from the use of vasopressin given during CPR. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiac arrest is defined as the sudden cessation of spontaneous ventilation and circulation. Within 15 seconds of cardiac arrest, the patient loses consciousness, electroencephalogram becomes flat after 30 seconds, pupils dilate fully after 60 seconds, and cerebral damage takes place within 90-300 seconds. It is essential to act immediately as irreversible damage can occur in a short time. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an attempt to restore spontaneous circulation through a broad range of interventions which are early defibrillation, high-quality and uninterrupted chest compressions, advanced airway interventions, and pharmacological interventions. Drugs should be considered only after initial shocks have been delivered (when indicated) and chest compressions and ventilation have been started. During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no specific drug therapy has been shown to improve survival to hospital discharge after cardiac arrest, and only few drugs have a proven benefit for short-term survival. This paper reviews current pharmacological treatment of cardiac arrest. There are three groups of drugs relevant to the management of cardiac arrest: vasopressors, antiarrhythmics, and other drugs such as sodium bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, atropine, fibrinolytic drugs, and corticosteroids.
    01/2012; 2012(2090-2840):815857. DOI:10.1155/2012/815857
  • Source
    • "However, the recent international literature is not very encouraging in the use of vasopressin as a single agent of choice for cardiac arrest. On a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,519 patients with cardiac arrest from 5 randomized controlled trials, the results demonstrate that there is no clear advantage of vasopressin over epinephrine and that vasopressin should not be recommended on resuscitation protocols until more solid human data on its superiority are available [29]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epinephrine remains the drug of choice for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine, given their different mechanisms of action, provides better results than epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Ventricular fibrillation was induced in 22 Landrace/Large-White piglets, which were left untreated for 8 minutes before attempted resuscitation with precordial compression, mechanical ventilation and electrical defibrillation. Animals were randomized into 2 groups during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: 11 animals who received saline as placebo (20 ml dilution, bolus) + epinephrine (0.02 mg/kg) (Epi group); and 11 animals who received vasopressin (0.4 IU/kg/20 ml dilution, bolus) + epinephrine (0.02 mg/kg) (Vaso-Epi group). Electrical defibrillation was attempted after 10 minutes of ventricular fibrillation. Ten of 11 animals in the Vaso-Epi group restored spontaneous circulation in comparison to only 4 of 11 in the Epi group (p = 0.02). Aortic diastolic pressure, as well as, coronary perfusion pressure were significantly increased (p < 0.05) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the Vaso-Epi group. The administration of vasopressin in combination with epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation results in a drastic improvement in the hemodynamic parameters necessary for the return of spontaneous circulation.
    Critical care (London, England) 03/2008; 12(2):R40. DOI:10.1186/cc6838 · 4.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Notfall 11/2010; 13(7):559-620. DOI:10.1007/s10049-010-1370-3 · 0.47 Impact Factor
Show more