Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Resuscitation. 2012 Mar;83(3):327-32. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.11.011. Epub 2011 Nov 22.

Outcome when adrenaline (epinephrine) was actually given vs. not given - post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Author information

  • 1Department of Anaesthesiology and Institute for Experimental Medical Research, Oslo University Hospital, PB 4956 Nydalen, N-0424 Oslo, Norway. t.m.olasveengen@medisin.uio.no

Abstract

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:

IV line insertion and drugs did not affect long-term survival in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) randomized clinical trial (RCT). In a previous large registry study adrenaline was negatively associated with survival from OHCA. The present post hoc analysis on the RCT data compares outcomes for patients actually receiving adrenaline to those not receiving adrenaline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients from a RCT performed May 2003 to April 2008 were included. Three patients from the original intention-to-treat analysis were excluded due to insufficient documentation of adrenaline administration. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS:

Clinical characteristics were similar and CPR quality comparable and within guideline recommendations for 367 patients receiving adrenaline and 481 patients not receiving adrenaline. Odds ratio (OR) for being admitted to hospital, being discharged from hospital and surviving with favourable neurological outcome for the adrenaline vs. no-adrenaline group was 2.5 (CI 1.9, 3.4), 0.5 (CI 0.3, 0.8) and 0.4 (CI 0.2, 0.7), respectively. Ventricular fibrillation, response interval, witnessed arrest, gender, age and endotracheal intubation were confounders in multivariate logistic regression analysis. OR for survival for adrenaline vs. no-adrenaline adjusted for confounders was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.92).

CONCLUSION:

Receiving adrenaline was associated with improved short-term survival, but decreased survival to hospital discharge and survival with favourable neurological outcome after OHCA. This post hoc survival analysis is in contrast to the previous intention-to-treat analysis of the same data, but agrees with previous non-randomized registry data. This shows limitations of non-randomized or non-intention-to-treat analyses.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Comment in

PMID:
22115931
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk