Fulkerson Justin, Lowe Robert, Anderson Tristan, Moore Heather, Craig William, Johnson Don
U.S. Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
West J Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;17(2):222-8. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.12.28825. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
This study compared the effects of vasopressin via tibial intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) routes on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the time to maximum concentration (Tmax), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and time to ROSC in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model.
This study was a randomized prospective, between-subjects experimental design. A computer program randomly assigned 28 Yorkshire swine to one of four groups: IV (n=7), IO tibia (n=7), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) + defibrillation (n=7), and a control group that received just CPR (n=7). Ventricular fibrillation was induced, and subjects remained in arrest for two minutes. CPR was initiated and 40 units of vasopressin were administered via IO or IV routes. Blood samples were collected at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 minutes. CPR and defibrillation were initiated for 20 minutes or until ROSC was achieved. We measured vasopressin concentrations using high-performance liquid chromatography.
There was no significant difference between the IO and IV groups relative to achieving ROSC (p=1.0) but a significant difference between the IV compared to the CPR+ defibrillation group (p=0.031) and IV compared to the CPR-only group (p=0.001). There was a significant difference between the IO group compared to the CPR+ defibrillation group (p=0.031) and IO compared to the CPR-only group (p=0.001). There was no significant difference between the CPR + defibrillation group and the CPR group (p=0.127). There was no significant difference in Cmax between the IO and IV groups (p=0.079). The mean ± standard deviation of Cmax of the IO group was 58,709±25, 463 pg/mL compared to the IV group, which was 106,198±62, 135 pg/mL. There was no significant difference in mean Tmax between the groups (p=0.084). There were no significant differences in odds of ROSC between the tibial IO and IV groups.
Prompt access to the vascular system using the IO route can circumvent the interruption in treatment observed with attempting conventional IV access. The IO route is an effective modality for the treatment of hypovolemic cardiac arrest and may be considered first line for rapid vascular access.
本研究比较了在低血容量性心脏骤停模型中,经胫骨骨髓腔内(IO)和静脉内(IV)途径给予血管加压素对最大血浆浓度(Cmax)、达到最大浓度的时间(Tmax)、自主循环恢复(ROSC)以及达到ROSC的时间的影响。
本研究采用随机前瞻性、受试者间实验设计。一个计算机程序将28只约克郡猪随机分配到四组之一:静脉内组(n = 7)、胫骨骨髓腔内组(n = 7)、心肺复苏(CPR)+除颤组(n = 7)以及仅接受CPR的对照组(n = 7)。诱发室颤,使受试者心脏骤停两分钟。开始进行CPR,并通过IO或IV途径给予40单位血管加压素。在0.5、1、1.5、2、2.5、3和4分钟采集血样。进行20分钟CPR和除颤,或直至实现ROSC。我们使用高效液相色谱法测量血管加压素浓度。
在实现ROSC方面,IO组和IV组之间无显著差异(p = 1.0),但IV组与CPR +除颤组相比有显著差异(p = 0.031),IV组与仅CPR组相比有显著差异(p = 0.001)。IO组与CPR +除颤组相比有显著差异(p = 0.031),IO组与仅CPR组相比有显著差异(p = 0.001)。CPR +除颤组和CPR组之间无显著差异(p = 0.127)。IO组和IV组之间的Cmax无显著差异(p = 0.079)。IO组Cmax的平均值±标准差为58,709±25,463 pg/mL,而IV组为106,198±62,135 pg/mL。各组之间的平均Tmax无显著差异(p = 0.084)。胫骨骨髓腔内组和静脉内组在ROSC几率方面无显著差异。
通过IO途径迅速进入血管系统可避免在尝试传统IV途径时出现的治疗中断。IO途径是治疗低血容量性心脏骤停的有效方式,可被视为快速血管通路的一线选择。