Vasopressin and epinephrine vs. epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. METHODS: In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127907.)

Out-of-hospital emergency medicine in pediatric patients: prevalence and management of pain.

INTRODUCTION: Much less is known about pain prevalence in pediatric patients in an out-of-hospital than emergency department setting. The purpose of this study was to determine pain prevalence in children in a prehospital emergency setting and to identify the factors associated with pain relief. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study in consecutive patients 15 years or younger was conducted by 5 mobile intensive care units working 24/7 (January-December 2005). The presence of pain, its intensity, and alleviation by the administration of analgesics were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 258 of 433 pediatric patients were included, of whom 96 were suffering from acute pain (37%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31-43) that was intense to severe in 67% of cases. Trauma was the only factor significantly associated with acute pain (odds ratio, 818; 95% CI, 153-4376). Overall, 92% of the children in pain received at least one analgesic drug; 41% received a combination of drugs. Opioid administration was significantly associated with intense to severe pain (odds ratio, 7; 95% CI, 2-25). On arrival at hospital, 67% of the children were still in pain; but 84% had experienced some pain relief regardless of their sex, age, or disorder. CONCLUSION: In a prehospital emergency setting, more than a third of children experience acute pain with a high prevalence of intense to severe pain. Scoring pain in children, and especially in the newborn, is beleaguered by a lack of suitable scales. Despite this, it was possible to treat 90% of children in pain and provide relief in 80% of cases.

Early invasive strategy in high-risk acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation. The Sisca randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of an early invasive strategy and a delayed invasive strategy in the management of high-risk NSTE-ACS patients. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial in a primarily pre-hospital setting enrolled patients with chest pain, electrocardiographic criteria for an NSTE-ACS, and at least one criterion of severity (ESC criterion or TIMI score >5). Patients were randomized to either an early invasive strategy (tirofiban infusion and coronary angiography within 6h) or delayed invasive strategy (as per guidelines and physician discretion; coronary angiography within 6h was not advised). The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of deaths, myocardial infarctions, or urgent revascularizations at 30days of follow-up. Secondary endpoints were failure of delayed management, length of hospital stay and long-term mortality. RESULTS: Between January 2007 and February 2010, 170 patients were enrolled. The cumulative incidence of adverse outcomes was significantly lower for early invasive than delayed management (2% [95% CI 0-9] vs. 24% [95% CI 16-35], p<10(-4)). Delayed management failed in 24% of cases. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients undergoing angioplasty or treated with tirofiban within 6h (p=0.0003). Long-term mortality was 16% in both arms after a median follow-up of 4.1years. CONCLUSION: An early invasive strategy reduced major adverse cardiac events in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS. Early angiography or tirofiban (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor) infusion proved necessary in a quarter of patients assigned to delayed management.