ArticleBMC research notes2014
Resuscitation after cardiac arrest in a septic porcine model: adding vasopressin vs epinephrine alone administration.
Article in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVasopressin administration has been tested in cardiac arrest. However it has not been tested when cardiac arrest occurs in certain circumstances, as in sepsis, where it may have a major role. The aim of the study was to investigate survival after cardiac arrest in a septic porcine model compared with healthy animals and to explore the effectiveness of adding vasopressin vs epinephrine alone administration.
methodsThirty five healthy piglets of both genders were studied. The piglets were randomly assigned into three groups: group A (n = 8), group B (n = 14), group C (n = 13). Animals of groups B and C were given endotoxin to mimic a septic state before arrest. We applied the same resuscitation protocol to all pigs but we replaced the first dose of epinephrine with vasopressin in pigs of group C. Following surgical preparation and 30 min resting period, baseline measurements were recorded. In order to assess tissue oxygenation, we implemented Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) with the vascular occlusion technique (VOT) in thirteen lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated animals, occluding abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava. Afterwards, LPS (100 μg/kg) was infused in a 30 min period to animals of groups B and C and normal saline to group A. New NIRS measurements were obtained again. Subsequently, we provoked ventricular fibrillation (VF). After 3 min of untreated VF, open chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed manually. Primary end point was the restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).
resultsThe chance of ROSC for the groups A, B and C was 75%, 35.7%, and 30.7% respectively. A significant difference in ROSC was established between septic (group B + C) and non septic piglets (group A) (P = 0.046). Vasopressin administration had no effect in outcome. LPS administration decreased oxygen consumption rate, as assessed by NIRS, in peripheral tissues (22.6 ± 7.2. vs 18.5 ± 7.2, P = 0.07).
conclusionSeptic piglets have fewer chances to survive after cardiac arrest. No difference in outcome was observed when the first dose of epinephrine was replaced with vasopressin to treat cardiac arrest in the LPS-treated animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.