American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 5 , Pages 509-514, June 2007

Epinephrine, but not vasopressin, improves survival rates in an adult rabbit model of asphyxia cardiac arrest

  • Meng-Hua Chen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China
  • ,
  • Lu Xie, DPharm

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physiology, School of Pre-Clinical Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +86 771 5358282; fax: +86 771 5352775.
  • ,
  • Tang-Wei Liu, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China
  • ,
  • Feng-Qing Song, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China
  • ,
  • Tao He, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China
  • ,
  • Zhi-yu Zeng, MD

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China
  • ,
  • Shu-Rong Mo, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physiology, School of Pre-Clinical Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, PR China

Received 15 August 2006; accepted 29 August 2006.

Abstract 

Although vasopressin has been reported to be more effective than epinephrine for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in ventricular fibrillation animal models, its efficacy in asphyxia model remains controversy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of vasopressin vs epinephrine on restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in a rabbit model of asphyxia cardiac arrest.

Cardiac arrest was induced by clamping endotracheal tube. After 5 minutes of basic life-support cardiopulmonary resuscitation, animals who had no ROSC were randomly assigned to receive either epinephrine alone (epinephrine group; 200 μg/kg) or vasopressin alone (vasopressin group; 0.8 U/kg). The coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) was calculated as the difference between the minimal diastolic aortic and simultaneously recorded right atrial pressure. Restoration of spontaneous circulation was defined as an unassisted pulse with a systolic arterial pressure of 60 mm Hg or higher for 5 minutes or longer.

We induced arrest in 62 rabbits, 15 of whom had ROSC before drug administration and were excluded from analysis. The remaining 47 rabbits were randomized to epinephrine group (n = 24) and vasopressin group (n = 23). Before and after drug administration, CPP in epinephrine group increased significantly (from −4 ± 4 to 36 ± 9 mm Hg at peak value, P = .000), whereas CPP in vasopressin group increased only slightly (from 9 ± 5 to 18 ± 6 mm Hg at peak value, P = .20). After drug administration, 13 of 24 epinephrine rabbit had ROSC, and only 2 of 23 vasopressin rabbit had ROSC (P < .01).

Consequently, we conclude that epinephrine, but not vasopressin, increases survival rates in this adult rabbit asphyxia model.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was supported by the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation of China, Nanning, Guangxi, China (grant nos. 0135038 and 0640081).

PII: S0735-6757(06)00420-7

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2006.08.022

American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 5 , Pages 509-514, June 2007