The effects of endothelin-1 on coronary perfusion pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a canine model

OBJECTIVE To study the hemodynamic effects of exogenously administered endothelin-1 (ET-1), a peptide produced by endothelial cells with potent non-adrenergically mediated vasoconstrictor properties. METHODS A prospective drug intervention study was carried out in a resuscitation research laboratory. Fifteen mixed-breed dogs were anesthetized and instrumented for hemodynamic monitoring. Asphyxia arrest was produced by clamping the endotracheal tube. Hemodynamic data were collected continuously. Following loss of aortic fluctuations monitored by thoracic aortic catheter, the animals remained in pulseless electrical activity (PEA) for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes of no-flow PEA, closed-chest CPR was begun and the animals were randomized to one of three treatment groups (EPI, 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine IV every 3 minutes; ENDO, 100 micrograms ET-1 IV at 0 minutes; and EPI/ENDO, a combination of the EPI and ENDO treatments). RESULTS ENDO and EPI alone produced similar coronary perfusion pressures (CPPs). The EPI/ENDO combination produced significantly improved CPP compared with that of either EPI or ENDO alone. In the EPI group, the best mean CPP was 16 +/- 14 mm Hg and occurred 7 minutes after drug administration. In the ENDO group, the best mean CPP was 28 +/- 7 mm Hg and occurred 13 minutes after drug administration. In the EPI/ENDO combination group, the best mean CPP was 61 +/- 37 mm Hg and occurred 7 minutes after drug administration (p < 0.05 compared with the EPI and ENDO groups alone). CONCLUSION ET-1 is a potent vasoconstrictor. The combination of EPI and ENDO significantly improved CPP compared with that for either agent alone. ET-1 should be investigated further as a vasoconstrictor in cardiac arrest.

Translation of ERC resuscitation guidelines into clinical practice by emergency physicians

PURPOSE Austrian out-of-hospital emergency physicians (OOHEP) undergo mandatory biannual emergency physician refresher courses to maintain their licence. The purpose of this study was to compare different reported emergency skills and knowledge, recommended by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines, between OOHEP who work regularly at an out-of-hospital emergency service and those who do not currently work as OOHEP but are licenced. METHODS We obtained data from 854 participants from 19 refresher courses. Demographics, questions about their practice and multiple-choice questions about ALS-knowledge were answered and analysed. We particularly explored the application of therapeutic hypothermia, intraosseous access, pocket guide use and knowledge about the participants' defibrillator in use. A multivariate logistic regression analysed differences between both groups of OOHEP. Age, gender, years of clinical experience, ERC-ALS provider course attendance and the self-reported number of resuscitations were control variables. RESULTS Licenced OOHEP who are currently employed in emergency service are significantly more likely to initiate intraosseous access (OR = 4.013, p < 0.01), they initiate mild-therapeutic hypothermia after successful resuscitation (OR = 2.550, p < 0.01) more often, and knowledge about the used defibrillator was higher (OR = 2.292, p < 0.01). No difference was found for the use of pocket guides.OOHEP who have attended an ERC-ALS provider course since 2005 have initiated more mild therapeutic hypothermia after successful resuscitation (OR = 1.670, p <0.05) as well as participants who resuscitated within the last year (OR = 2.324, p < 0.01), while older OOHEP initiated mild therapeutic hypothermia less often, measured per year of age (OR = 0.913, p <0.01). CONCLUSION Licenced and employed OOHEP implement ERC guidelines better into clinical practice, but more training on life-saving rescue techniques needs to be done to improve knowledge and to raise these rates of application.