title: Aortic arch versus central venous epinephrine during CPR.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine if delivery of epinephrine to the peripheral arterial system by an aortic arch catheter is more effective than central venous epinephrine administration during cardiac resuscitation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixteen mongrel canines (25 to 31 kg).
  
  
  METHODS
  Animals had aortic arch pressure, and right atrial pressure, superior vena cava infusion, and descending aortic arch infusion catheters placed using fluoroscopy. After ten minutes of ventricular fibrillation, three DC countershocks were delivered over one minute. If unsuccessful, CPR at 120 compressions per minute was begun, and at 60 seconds of CPR, epinephrine (1 mg/50 mL normal saline) was administered either through the superior vena cava or the aortic arch catheter followed by one more minute of CPR. Defibrillation then was attempted and, if unsuccessful, further resuscitative efforts followed advanced cardiac life support guidelines, except route and dose of epinephrine remained the same.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Aortic arch pressure, right atrial pressure, and coronary perfusion pressure (diastolic aortic arch pressure minus diastolic right atrial pressure) were recorded continuously. Aortic arch pressure and coronary perfusion pressure increased more rapidly and to a greater magnitude with aortic arch-epinephrine than superior vena cava-epinephrine. Coronary perfusion pressure doubled by ten seconds in seven of eight in the aortic arch-epinephrine group versus none in the superior vena cava-epinephrine group. Aortic arch pressure and coronary perfusion pressure increases consistently plateaued within 60 seconds after aortic arch-epinephrine but not after superior vena cava-epinephrine. Return of spontaneous circulation was faster (P < .05) in the aortic arch-epinephrine group. Maximal coronary perfusion pressure after epinephrine correlated with the coronary perfusion pressure immediately before epinephrine administration in both groups, but more strongly in the aortic arch-epinephrine group (P = .0001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For an equivalent dose of epinephrine, aortic arch administration produces a more rapid response and more rapid peak effect than central venous administration. The combination of aortic arch-epinephrine administration and aortic pressure monitoring may be useful when initial standard resuscitative measures have not been successful.
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, University of North Carolina.
authors.forename: J E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Manning
authors.forename: C A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: D N
authors.initials: DN
authors.lastname: Batson
authors.forename: S G
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Perretta
authors.forename: R A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Mueller
authors.forename: E A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Norfleet
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001013:Aorta, Thoracic; D001794:Blood Pressure / Q000187:drug effects; D016887:Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / Q000379:methods*; D002405:Catheterization, Central Venous; D002406:Catheterization, Peripheral; D004285:Dogs; D004837:Epinephrine / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D006323:Heart Arrest / Q000628:therapy*; D014683:Vena Cava, Superior
chemical_list: D004837:Epinephrine