Cargando…

Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the effects of vasopressin via tibial intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) routes on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the time to maximum concentration (Tmax), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and time to ROSC in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model. ME...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fulkerson, Justin, Lowe, Robert, Anderson, Tristan, Moore, Heather, Craig, William, Johnson, Don
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4786250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26973756
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.12.28825
_version_ 1782420523732434944
author Fulkerson, Justin
Lowe, Robert
Anderson, Tristan
Moore, Heather
Craig, William
Johnson, Don
author_facet Fulkerson, Justin
Lowe, Robert
Anderson, Tristan
Moore, Heather
Craig, William
Johnson, Don
author_sort Fulkerson, Justin
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: This study compared the effects of vasopressin via tibial intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) routes on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the time to maximum concentration (Tmax), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and time to ROSC in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model. METHODS: This study was a randomized prospective, between-subjects experimental design. A computer program randomly assigned 28 Yorkshire swine to one of four groups: IV (n=7), IO tibia (n=7), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) + defibrillation (n=7), and a control group that received just CPR (n=7). Ventricular fibrillation was induced, and subjects remained in arrest for two minutes. CPR was initiated and 40 units of vasopressin were administered via IO or IV routes. Blood samples were collected at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 minutes. CPR and defibrillation were initiated for 20 minutes or until ROSC was achieved. We measured vasopressin concentrations using high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the IO and IV groups relative to achieving ROSC (p=1.0) but a significant difference between the IV compared to the CPR+ defibrillation group (p=0.031) and IV compared to the CPR-only group (p=0.001). There was a significant difference between the IO group compared to the CPR+ defibrillation group (p=0.031) and IO compared to the CPR-only group (p=0.001). There was no significant difference between the CPR + defibrillation group and the CPR group (p=0.127). There was no significant difference in Cmax between the IO and IV groups (p=0.079). The mean ± standard deviation of Cmax of the IO group was 58,709±25, 463pg/mL compared to the IV group, which was 106,198±62, 135pg/mL. There was no significant difference in mean Tmax between the groups (p=0.084). There were no significant differences in odds of ROSC between the tibial IO and IV groups. CONCLUSION: Prompt access to the vascular system using the IO route can circumvent the interruption in treatment observed with attempting conventional IV access. The IO route is an effective modality for the treatment of hypovolemic cardiac arrest and may be considered first line for rapid vascular access.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4786250
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47862502016-03-11 Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model Fulkerson, Justin Lowe, Robert Anderson, Tristan Moore, Heather Craig, William Johnson, Don West J Emerg Med Critical Care INTRODUCTION: This study compared the effects of vasopressin via tibial intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) routes on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the time to maximum concentration (Tmax), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and time to ROSC in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model. METHODS: This study was a randomized prospective, between-subjects experimental design. A computer program randomly assigned 28 Yorkshire swine to one of four groups: IV (n=7), IO tibia (n=7), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) + defibrillation (n=7), and a control group that received just CPR (n=7). Ventricular fibrillation was induced, and subjects remained in arrest for two minutes. CPR was initiated and 40 units of vasopressin were administered via IO or IV routes. Blood samples were collected at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 minutes. CPR and defibrillation were initiated for 20 minutes or until ROSC was achieved. We measured vasopressin concentrations using high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the IO and IV groups relative to achieving ROSC (p=1.0) but a significant difference between the IV compared to the CPR+ defibrillation group (p=0.031) and IV compared to the CPR-only group (p=0.001). There was a significant difference between the IO group compared to the CPR+ defibrillation group (p=0.031) and IO compared to the CPR-only group (p=0.001). There was no significant difference between the CPR + defibrillation group and the CPR group (p=0.127). There was no significant difference in Cmax between the IO and IV groups (p=0.079). The mean ± standard deviation of Cmax of the IO group was 58,709±25, 463pg/mL compared to the IV group, which was 106,198±62, 135pg/mL. There was no significant difference in mean Tmax between the groups (p=0.084). There were no significant differences in odds of ROSC between the tibial IO and IV groups. CONCLUSION: Prompt access to the vascular system using the IO route can circumvent the interruption in treatment observed with attempting conventional IV access. The IO route is an effective modality for the treatment of hypovolemic cardiac arrest and may be considered first line for rapid vascular access. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2016-03 2016-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4786250/ /pubmed/26973756 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.12.28825 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Fulkerson et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Critical Care
Fulkerson, Justin
Lowe, Robert
Anderson, Tristan
Moore, Heather
Craig, William
Johnson, Don
Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model
title Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model
title_full Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model
title_fullStr Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model
title_full_unstemmed Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model
title_short Effects of Intraosseous Tibial vs. Intravenous Vasopressin in a Hypovolemic Cardiac Arrest Model
title_sort effects of intraosseous tibial vs. intravenous vasopressin in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model
topic Critical Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4786250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26973756
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.12.28825
work_keys_str_mv AT fulkersonjustin effectsofintraosseoustibialvsintravenousvasopressininahypovolemiccardiacarrestmodel
AT lowerobert effectsofintraosseoustibialvsintravenousvasopressininahypovolemiccardiacarrestmodel
AT andersontristan effectsofintraosseoustibialvsintravenousvasopressininahypovolemiccardiacarrestmodel
AT mooreheather effectsofintraosseoustibialvsintravenousvasopressininahypovolemiccardiacarrestmodel
AT craigwilliam effectsofintraosseoustibialvsintravenousvasopressininahypovolemiccardiacarrestmodel
AT johnsondon effectsofintraosseoustibialvsintravenousvasopressininahypovolemiccardiacarrestmodel