ArticlePediatric research2024
Comparison of various vasopressin doses to epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in asphyxiated neonatal piglets.
Article in Pediatric research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Intramuscular Vasopressin on Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Healthy Neonatal Piglets: A Dose-Response Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of vasopressin on brain and cardiac tissue during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated post-transitional piglets.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of various vasopressin doses and routes of administration in a neonatal piglet model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend epinephrine for cardiac arrest. Vasopressin might be an alternative during asphyxial cardiac arrest. We aimed to compare vasopressin and epinephrine on incidence and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in asphyxiated newborn piglets. DESIGN/
methodsNewborn piglets (n = 8/group) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to 30 min of normocapnic hypoxia, followed by asphyxia and asystolic cardiac arrest. Piglets were randomized to 0.2, 0.4, or 0.8IU/kg vasopressin, or 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine. Hemodynamic parameters were continuously measured.
resultsMedian (IQR) time to ROSC was 172(103-418)s, 157(100-413)s, 122(93-289)s, and 276(117-480)s for 0.2, 0.4, 0.8IU/kg vasopressin, and 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine groups, respectively (p = 0.59). The number of piglets that achieved ROSC was 6(75%), 6(75%), 7(88%), and 5(63%) for 0.2, 0.4, 0.8IU/kg vasopressin, and 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine, respectively (p = 0.94). The epinephrine group had a 60% (3/5) rate of post-ROSC survival compared to 83% (5/6), 83% (5/6), and 57% (4/7) in the 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8IU/kg vasopressin groups, respectively (p = 0.61).
conclusionTime to and incidence of ROSC were not different between all vasopressin dosages and epinephrine. However, non-significantly lower time to ROSC and higher post-ROSC survival in vasopressin groups warrant further investigation. IMPACT: Time to and incidence of ROSC were not statistically different between all vasopressin dosages and epinephrine. Non-significantly lower time to ROSC and higher post-ROSC survival in vasopressin-treated piglets. Overall poorer hemodynamic recovery following ROSC in epinephrine piglets compared to vasopressin groups. Human neonatal clinical trials examining the efficacy of vasopressin during asphyxial cardiac arrest will begin recruitment soon.
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.