Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review
- PMID: 38150986
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.031
Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review
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.
Keywords: Cardiac arrest; Catecholamines; Post-resuscitation shock; Return of spontaneous circulation; Vasopressors.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest The following authors report no conflict of interest: CL, CC, NA, LR. The following authors received funding by Spero Therapeutics-provided unrestricted research grant via its Investigator Initiated Research Program: BF, MR, GS. GS reports participating in an advisory board meeting for Hema Biologics in 2022 regarding blood factor products. CB reports grant funding from Alexion/Astra Zeneca Rare Disease.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
