Prehospital Administration of Norepinephrine and Epinephrine for Shock after Resuscitation from Cardiac Arrest

Abstract

Introduction

Shock after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is often treated with vasopressors. We examined whether infusion of epinephrine versus norepinephrine was associated with prehospital rearrest and neurologically favorable survival among OHCA patients.

Methods

This retrospective study included OHCA cases in Seattle, Washington from 2014-2021 who had return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) followed by vasopressor infusion. Our primary exposure was infusion of epinephrine or norepinephrine. Our primary outcome was prehospital rearrest. Secondary outcomes included survival and neurologically favorable outcome (Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2). We used multivariable logistic regression to test associations between exposures and outcomes adjusting for key covariates.

Results

Of 451 OHCA patients with ROSC followed by vasopressor infusion, 253 (56%) received norepinephrine and 198 (44%) received epinephrine infusions. Those who received epinephrine were older (median 66 [interquartile ranges {IQR} 53-79] vs 63 [IQR 47-75] years), but otherwise had similar baseline characteristics. Patients who received epinephrine were twice as likely to rearrest (55% vs 25%). After adjustment, the difference in rearrest rates between epinephrine and norepinephrine persisted (OR 3.28, 95%CI 2.25-5.08), and the odds of pulses at hospital arrival were lower in the epinephrine group (OR 0.52 95%CI 0.32-0.83). After adjustment, there was no difference in neurologically favorable survival, survival to hospital admission, or survival to discharge.

Conclusion

Patients who received epinephrine infusions after ROSC suffered prehospital rearrest more frequently than those who received norepinephrine. Survival and neurological status at hospital discharge were similar. Future trials should examine the optimal approach to hemodynamic management for post-OHCA shock.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).