• Don Johnson, Julie G Hensler, Joseph O'Sullivan, Dawn Blouin, Melissa A de la Garza, and Young Yauger.
• From the US Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia Nursing, US Army Medical Center of Excellence, Fort Sam Houston, TX.
• Pediatr Emerg Care. 2024 Mar 1; 40 (3): 197202197-202.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the endotracheal tube (ET) and intravenous (IV) administration of epinephrine relative to concentration maximum, time to maximum concentration, mean concentration over time (MC), area under the curve, odds, and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in a normovolemic pediatric cardiac arrest model.MethodsMale swine weighing 24-37 kg were assigned to 4 groups: ET (n = 8), IV (n = 7), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) + defibrillation (CPR + Defib) (n = 5), and CPR only (n = 3). Swine were placed arrest for 2 minutes, and then CPR was initiated for 2 minutes. Epinephrine (0.1 mg/kg) for the ET group or 0.01 mg/kg for the IV was administered every 4 minutes or until ROSC. Defibrillation started at 3 minutes and continued every 2 minutes for 30 minutes or until ROSC for all groups except the CPR-only group. Blood samples were collected over a period of 5 minutes.ResultsThe MC of plasma epinephrine for the IV group was significantly higher at the 30- and 60-second time points (P = 0.001). The ET group had a significantly higher MC of epinephrine at the 180- and 240-second time points (P < 0.05). The concentration maximum of plasma epinephrine was significantly lower for the ET group (195 ± 32 ng/mL) than for the IV group (428 ± 38 ng/mL) (P = 0.01). The time to maximum concentration was significantly longer for the ET group (145 ± 26 seconds) than for the IV group (42 ± 16 seconds) (P = 0.01). No significant difference existed in area under the curve between the 2 groups (P = 0.62). The odds of ROSC were 7.7 times greater for the ET versus IV group. Time to ROSC was not significantly different among the IV, ET, and CPR + Defib groups (P = 0.31).ConclusionsBased on the results of this study, the ET route of administration should be considered a first-line intervention.Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…