• A C Krismer, V Wenzel, V D Mayr, W G Voelckel, H U Strohmenger, K Lurie, and K H Lindner.
• Leopold-Franzens University, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Anichstr 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. anette.krismer@uibk.ac.at
• Curr Opin Crit Care. 2001 Jun 1;7(3):157-69.

AbstractEpinephrine use during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is controversial because of its receptor-mediated adverse effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption, ventricular arrhythmias, ventilation-perfusion defect, postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and cardiac failure. In the CPR laboratory, vasopressin improved vital organ blood flow, cerebral oxygen delivery, resuscitability, and neurologic recovery more than did epinephrine. In patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation, a larger proportion of patients treated with vasopressin survived 24 hours than did patients treated with epinephrine. Currently, a large trial of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients being treated with vasopressin versus epinephrine is ongoing in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The new international CPR guidelines recommend 40 U vasopressin intravenously, and 1 mg epinephrine intravenously, as equally effective for the treatment of adult patients in ventricular fibrillation; however, no recommendation for vasopressin has been made to date for adult patients with asystole and pulseless electrical activity, or in children, because of lack of clinical data. When adrenergic vasopressors were unable to maintain arterial blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock, continuous infusions of vasopressin (0.04-0.10 U/min) stabilized cardiocirculatory parameters and even ensured weaning from catecholamines.

17 keywords...

hide…