Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2022
A prospective observational study on impact of epinephrine administration route on acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiac arrest in the catheterization laboratory (iCPR study).
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05253937 (Impact of Intracoronary Versus Central and Peripheral Intravenous Epinephrine Administration During Cardiac Arrest in The Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory for Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients.), which is not on this 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.
Impact of Intracoronary Versus Central and Peripheral Intravenous Epinephrine Administration During Cardiac Arrest in The Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory for Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 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
16 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpinephrine is routinely utilized in cardiac arrest; however, it is unclear if the route of administration affects outcomes in acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiac arrest.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy of epinephrine administered via the peripheral intravenous (IV), central IV, and intracoronary (IC) routes.
methodsProspective two-center pilot cohort study of acute myocardial infarction patients who suffered cardiac arrest in the cardiac catheterization laboratory during percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared the outcomes of patients who received epinephrine via peripheral IV, central IV, or IC.
results158 participants were enrolled, 48 (30.4%), 50 (31.6%), and 60 (38.0%) in the central IV, IC, and peripheral IV arms, respectively. Peripheral IV epinephrine administration route was associated with lower odds of achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC, odds ratio = 0.14, 95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.36, p < 0.0001) compared with central IV and IC administration. (There was no difference between central IV and IC routes; p = 0.9343.) The odds of stent thrombosis were significantly higher with the IC route (IC vs. peripheral IV OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 1.5-14.3, p = 0.0094; IC vs. central IV OR = 6.0, 95% CI = 1.9-19.2, p = 0.0025). Post-ROSC neurologic outcomes were better for central IV and IC routes when compared with peripheral IV.
conclusionEpinephrine administration via central IV and IC routes was associated with a higher rate of ROSC and better neurologic outcomes compared with peripheral IV administration. IC administration was associated with a higher risk of stent thrombosis. Trial registration This trial is registered at NCT05253937 .
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.