Intensive Care Med. 2022 Feb 7. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06608-7. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
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 < 0.001), as was the proportion of patients with CPC of 3-5 at hospital discharge. Sensitivity analyses produced consistent results. The analysis involving adjustment on a propensity score to control for confounders showed similar findings (aOR 2.1; 95%CI 1.1-4.0; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with post-resuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, use of epinephrine was associated with higher all-cause and cardiovascular-specific mortality, compared with norepinephrine infusion. Until additional data become available, intensivists may want to choose norepinephrine rather than epinephrine for the treatment of post-resuscitation shock after OHCA.
PMID:35129643 | DOI:10.1007/s00134-021-06608-7