Am J Emerg Med. 2023 Dec 21;77:158-163. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.031. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The preferred vasopressor in post-cardiac arrest shock has not been established with robust clinical outcomes data. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, refractory shock, and hemodynamic parameters in post-cardiac arrest patients who received either norepinephrine or epinephrine as primary vasopressor support.
METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 2000 to 2022. Included studies were prospective, retrospective, or published abstracts comparing norepinephrine and epinephrine in adults with post-cardiac arrest shock or with cardiogenic shock and extractable post-cardiac arrest data. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes included incidence of arrhythmias or refractory shock.
RESULTS: The database search returned 2646 studies. Two studies involving 853 participants were included in the systematic review. The proposed meta-analysis was deferred due to low yield. Crude incidence of in-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the epinephrine group compared with norepinephrine in both studies, but only statistically significant in one. Risk of bias was moderate to severe for in-hospital mortality. Additional outcomes were reported differently between studies, minimizing direct comparison.
CONCLUSION: The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.
PMID:38150986 | DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.031