ReviewCritical care (London, England)2023
Improving vasopressor use in cardiac arrest.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Machine learning-driven prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest among critically ill patients with traumatic spinal cord injury: a multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Potential association between chronic alpha-1 adrenergic blockade and early epinephrine-related resuscitation profiles during cardiac arrest: a retrospective exploratory cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- The effects of norepinephrine in shockable cardiac arrest, a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- The use of epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arres : A retrospective study of the effects of administration timing and cumulative doses on outcome in a physician-staffed emergency medical service system.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Drug-induced cardiac arrest: a pharmacovigilance study from 2004-2024 based on FAERS database.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Optimal weight-based epinephrine dosing for patients with a low likelihood of survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Review
- The relationship between the level of NMLR on admission and the prognosis of patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a retrospective observational study.European journal of medical research · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Chain of Survival highlights the effectiveness of early recognition of cardiac arrest and call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation. Most patients, however, remain in cardiac arrest despite these interventions. Drug treatments, particularly the use of vasopressors, have been included in resuscitation algorithms since their inception. This narrative review describes the current evidence base for vasopressors and reports that adrenaline (1 mg) is highly effective at achieving return of spontaneous circulation (number needed to treat 4) but is less effective on long-term outcomes (survival to 30 days, number needed to treat 111) with uncertain effects on survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Randomised trials evaluating vasopressin, either as an alternative to or in addition to adrenaline, and high-dose adrenaline have failed to find evidence of improved long-term outcomes. There is a need for future trials to evaluate the interaction between steroids and vasopressin. Evidence for other vasopressors (e.g. noradrenaline, phenylephedrine) is insufficient to support or refute their use. The use of intravenous calcium chloride as a routine intervention in out of hospital cardiac arrest is not associated with benefit and may cause harm. The optimal route for vascular access between peripheral intravenous versus intraosseous routes is currently the subject of two large randomised trials. Intracardiac, endobronchial, and intramuscular routes are not recommended. Central venous administration should be limited to patients where an existing central venous catheter is in situ and patent.
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.