2 results
The Resuscitative and Pharmacokinetic Effects of Humeral Intraosseous Vasopressin in a Swine Model of Ventricular Fibrillation
- James M. Burgert, Arthur D. Johnson, Jose Garcia-Blanco, Lawrence V. Fulton, Michael J. Loughren
-
- Journal:
- Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 32 / Issue 3 / June 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 March 2017, pp. 305-310
- Print publication:
- June 2017
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Introduction
The American Heart Association (AHA; Dallas, Texas USA) and European Resuscitation Council (Niel, Belgium) cardiac arrest (CA) guidelines recommend the intraosseous (IO) route when intravenous (IV) access cannot be obtained. Vasopressin has been used as an alternative to epinephrine to treat ventricular fibrillation (VF).
Hypothesis/ProblemLimited data exist on the pharmacokinetics and resuscitative effects of vasopressin administered by the humeral IO (HIO) route for treatment of VF. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of HIO and IV vasopressin, on the occurrence, odds, and time of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and pharmacokinetic measures in a swine model of VF.
MethodsTwenty-seven Yorkshire-cross swine (60 to 80 kg) were assigned randomly to three groups: HIO (n=9), IV (n=9), and a control group (n=9). Ventricular fibrillation was induced and untreated for two minutes. Chest compressions began at two minutes post-arrest and vasopressin (40 U) administered at four minutes post-arrest. Serial blood specimens were collected for four minutes, then the swine were resuscitated until ROSC or 29 post-arrest minutes elapsed.
ResultsFisher’s Exact test determined ROSC was significantly higher in the HIO 5/7 (71.5%) and IV 8/11 (72.7%) groups compared to the control 0/9 (0.0%; P=.001). Odds ratios of ROSC indicated no significant difference between the treatment groups (P=.68) but significant differences between the HIO and control, and the IV and control groups (P=.03 and .01, respectively). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicated the mean time to ROSC for HIO and IV was 621.20 seconds (SD=204.21 seconds) and 554.50 seconds (SD=213.96 seconds), respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (U=11; P=.22). Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to maximum concentration (Tmax) of vasopressin in the HIO and IV groups was 71753.9 pg/mL (SD=26744.58 pg/mL) and 61853.7 pg/mL (SD=22745.04 pg/mL); 111.42 seconds (SD=51.3 seconds) and 114.55 seconds (SD=55.02 seconds), respectively. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated no significant difference in plasma vasopressin concentrations between the treatment groups over four minutes (P=.48).
ConclusionsThe HIO route delivered vasopressin effectively in a swine model of VF. Occurrence, time, and odds of ROSC, as well as pharmacokinetic measurements of HIO vasopressin, were comparable to IV.
,Burgert JM ,Johnson AD ,Garcia-Blanco J ,Fulton LV .Loughren MJ The Resuscitative and Pharmacokinetic Effects of Humeral Intraosseous Vasopressin in a Swine Model of Ventricular Fibrillation . Prehosp Disaster Med.2017 ;32 (3 ):305 –310 .
A Comparison of the Effects of Intraosseous and Intravenous 5% Albumin on Infusion Time and Hemodynamic Measures in a Swine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock
- Stacy L. Muir, Lance B. Sheppard, Anne Maika-Wilson, James M. Burgert, Jose Garcia-Blanco, Arthur D. Johnson, Jennifer L. Coyner
-
- Journal:
- Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 31 / Issue 4 / August 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 May 2016, pp. 436-442
- Print publication:
- August 2016
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Obtaining intravenous (IV) access in patients in hemorrhagic shock is often difficult and prolonged. Failed IV attempts delay life-saving treatment. Intraosseous (IO) access may often be obtained faster than IV access. Albumin (5%) is an option for prehospital volume expansion because of the absence of interference with coagulation and platelet function.
Hypothesis/ProblemThere are limited data comparing the performance of IO and IV administered 5% albumin. The aims of this study were to compare the effects of tibial IO (TIO) and IV administration of 500 mL of 5% albumin on infusion time and hemodynamic measurements of heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV) in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock.
MethodsSixteen male swine were divided into two groups: TIO and IV. All subjects were anesthetized and a Class III hemorrhage was achieved by exsanguination of 31% of estimated blood volume (EBV) from a femoral artery catheter. Following exsanguination, 500 mL of 5% albumin was administered under pressurized infusion (300 mmHg) by the TIO or IV route and infusion time was recorded. Hemodynamic measurements of HR, MAP, CO, and SV were collected before and after exsanguination and every 20 seconds for 180 seconds during 5% albumin infusion.
ResultsAn independent t-test determined that IV 5% albumin infusion was significantly faster compared to IO (P=.01). Mean infusion time for TIO was seven minutes 35 seconds (SD=two minutes 44 seconds) compared to four minutes 32 seconds (SD=one minute 08 seconds) in the IV group. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was performed on hemodynamic data collected during the 5% albumin infusion. Analyses indicated there were no significant differences between the TIO and IV groups relative to MAP, CO, HR, or SV (P>.05).
ConclusionWhile significantly longer to infuse 5% albumin by the TIO route, the longer TIO infusion time may be negated as IO devices can be placed more quickly compared to repeated IV attempts. The lack of significant difference between the TIO and IV routes relative to hemodynamic measures indicate the TIO route is a viable route for the infusion of 5% albumin in a swine model of Class III hemorrhage.
,Muir SL ,Sheppard LB ,Maika-Wilson A ,Burgert JM ,Garcia-Blanco J ,Johnson AD .Coyner JL A Comparison of the Effects of Intraosseous and Intravenous 5% Albumin on Infusion Time and Hemodynamic Measures in a Swine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock . Prehosp Disaster Med.2016 ;31 (4 ):436 –442 .