Intracoronary epinephrine during cardiac resuscitation for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction (iCPR study)
Authors: Aldujeli A , Tecson K , Haq A , Kurnickaite Z , Braukyliene R , Pranculis A , Baksyte G , Al Dujeili M , Khalifeh H , Briedis K , Ordiene R , Unikas R , Zaliaduonyte D , Hamadeh A 
Published: October 2022

Background

Despite significant progress in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), outcomes remain relatively poor. Epinephrine administration remains a cornerstone in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest. Various routes of administration, including intravenous, intramuscular, intraosseous and endotracheal routes have been studied; however, the optimal route is debated.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes following peripheral intravenous (IV), central IV, or arterial intracoronary (IC) epinephrine administration in patients undergoing CPR in the catheterization laboratory.

Methods

This was a prospective two-center pilot cohort study conducted in high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facilities in the republic of Lithuania. The study enrolled patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who suffered a cardiac arrest in the cardiac catheterization laboratory during PCI. Cardiac resuscitation was performed according to the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines. Central IV was the first choice for epinephrine administration if it was available. However, in cases without central access, the route of epinephrine administration (peripheral IV or arterial IC) was at the discretion of the physician. The primary endpoint was the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). We tested for overall differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between groups using Chi-Square (or Kruskal-Wallis) tests and used the Holm-Bonferroni adjustment (or Dunn's tests) for subsequent pairwise tests. We also performed logistic regression.

Results

There were 158 participants in this study, with 48 (30.4%), 50 (31.6%), and 60 (38.0%) receiving epinephrine via central IV, IC, and peripheral IV routes, respectively. The median age was 71 [61, 80] years and 56% of participants were men. Patient characteristics were similar across routes, except for age (higher for peripheral IV than IC), serum potassium (although no significant post-hoc differences), hemoglobin (lowest in peripheral route), and heart rhythm before CPR (higher rates of electromechanical dissociation in peripheral route). There were 111 (70%) patients who achieved the primary outcome of ROSC (Table 1). Peripheral IV administration was associated with 7-fold decreased odds of achieving ROSC (odds ratio = 0.14, 95% confidence interval = 0.05–0.36, p&lt;0.0001) compared to central IV (no difference between central IV and IC; p=0.9343). By itself, adrenaline route yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73, indicating good predictive ability.

Conclusion

Epinephrine administration route was a significant predictor of ROSC for patients with AMI undergoing CPR in the catheterization laboratory. ROSC rates for patients who received epinephrine via IC or central IV were superior to those who received it via peripheral IV.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Baylor Health Care System Foundation (USA)National Interventional Cardiology Association (Lithuania)