Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review

Christine K. Lawson, Brett A. Faine, Megan A. Rech, Christopher A. Childs, Caitlin S. Brown, Giles W. Slocum, Nicole M. Acquisto, Lance Ray
{"title":"Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review","authors":"Christine K. Lawson, Brett A. Faine, Megan A. Rech, Christopher A. Childs, Caitlin S. Brown, Giles W. Slocum, Nicole M. Acquisto, Lance Ray","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3><p>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.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>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.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.</p>","PeriodicalId":501288,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

去甲肾上腺素与肾上腺素用于心脏骤停后休克的血液动力学支持:系统性综述
目的 心脏骤停后休克的首选血管抑制剂还没有可靠的临床结果数据。我们的目标是对接受去甲肾上腺素或肾上腺素作为主要血管加压支持的心脏骤停后患者的院内死亡率、难治性休克和血流动力学参数进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。纳入的研究包括前瞻性研究、回顾性研究或发表的摘要,这些研究比较了去甲肾上腺素和肾上腺素在成人心脏骤停后休克或心源性休克患者中的应用,并提取了心脏骤停后的数据。主要研究结果为院内死亡率。其他结果包括心律失常或难治性休克的发生率。有两项涉及 853 名参与者的研究被纳入系统综述。拟议的荟萃分析因收效甚微而推迟。在两项研究中,肾上腺素组与去甲肾上腺素组相比,院内死亡率的粗发生率在数量上更高,但其中一项研究的粗发生率在统计学上具有显著性。院内死亡率的偏倚风险为中度至重度。结论 心脏骤停后休克中死亡率和血流动力学效果最佳的血管抑制剂仍不明确。随机研究对于解决这一问题至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信