ArticlePediatric research2025
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of endotracheal versus supraglottic airway epinephrine in a healthy neonatal piglet model.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supraglottic airway use during neonatal resuscitation: better suited to aeration than medication?Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Dose-Related Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Effects of Intramuscular Epinephrine in Healthy Neonatal Piglets.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpinephrine is currently the only vasopressor recommended for use during neonatal resuscitation. Epinephrine can be administered via intravenous, intraosseous, or endotracheal tube (ETT) route during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Supraglottic airway (SGA) may be a novel route of epinephrine administration. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of 0.1 mg/kg epinephrine administered via ETT, SGA top end, and SGA bottom end. DESIGN/
methodsNewborn piglets (n = 5/group) were anesthetized, randomized to SGA or tracheostomy, then surgically instrumented. Piglets randomized to SGA underwent another round of randomization following stabilization to receive epinephrine at the top or bottom of the SGA. Heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, and cardiac function (e.g., stroke volume and ejection fraction) were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Blood was collected prior to drug administration and throughout the observation period for pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetic analysis.
resultsSignificant changes in hemodynamic parameters of HR, carotid blood flow, and cardiac function were only observed following ETT administration of epinephrine, while pharmacokinetic parameters were not different between ETT, SGA top, or SGA bottom.
conclusionThere were no differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between ETT, SGA top, or SGA bottom routes of epinephrine administration in neonatal piglets. IMPACT: Endotracheal tube (ETT) epinephrine results in significant hemodynamic parameters changes, whereas supraglottic airway (SGA) epinephrine did not produce the same hemodynamic effects, despite similar pharmacokinetic profiles. Systematic comparison of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of epinephrine via SGA versus ETT identifying potential limitations of SGA for epinephrine administration. The study raises important questions about the effectiveness of SGA for epinephrine administration during neonatal resuscitation. This research could influence future resuscitation guidelines and drive further studies to explore alternative dosing strategies or methods to improve the efficacy of SGA epinephrine. Further experiments examining SGA epinephrine during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40038459What 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.