The effects of sternal and intravenous vasopressin administration on pharmacokinetics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2016.0240Keywords:
intraosseous, vasopressin, shock, arrestAbstract
Objective: Purposes of this study were to compare intravenous (IV) and sternal intraosseous (SIO) administration of vasopressin relative to concentration maximum (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), and mean concentration in a cardiac arrest model.
Design: Prospective, between subjects, randomized experimental design.
Setting: Vivarium.
Subjects: Yorkshire-cross swine (N = 16)
Intervention: Swine were anesthetized, placed into cardiac arrest, and after 2 minutes, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated. After additional 2 minutes, 40 units of vasopressin was administered either by SIO or IV route. Blood samples were collected over 4 minutes. Cmax and means were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.
Main outcome Measurements: Cmax, Tmax, and mean plasma concentrations.
Results: There were no significant differences in the SIO and IV groups in Cmax (p = 0.96) or Tmax (p = 0.27). The IV and SIO group had a mean Cmax of 68,151 ± SD 21,534 and 69,034 ± SD 40,169 pg/mL, respectively. The IV and SIO vasopressin groups had a mean Tmax of 105 ± SD 39 and 80 ± SD 41 seconds, respectively.
Conclusion: A multivariate analyses of variance indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in pretest data, Cmax, and Tmax; a repeated analyses of variance indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups relative to mean concentrations of serum vasopressin over time (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: When a patient is in cardiac arrest, it is essential to establish rapid and reliable access to blood vessels so that life-saving drugs can be administered and the SIO provides such a route.
References
Reduction UNISfD: UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2016.
Lennquist S: Education and training in disaster medicine. Scand J Surg. 2005; 94(4): 300-310.
Lennquist S, Turegano F: Introduction to the 7th focus-on issue devoted to disaster- and military surgery. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015; 41(2): 117-118.
Feeney JM, Ziegler K, Armstrong JM, et al.: Terrorist event training in US Medical Schools. A survey of chemical, biologic, radiologic, nuclear, and high-yield explosives training in US Medical Schools. Conn Med. 2015; 79(10): 581-585.
Kahan JH: Emergency management and homeland security: Exploring the relationship. J Emerg Manag. 2015; 13(6): 483-498.
Kahan JH: Hedging against terrorism: Are US businesses prepared? J Bus Contin Emer Plan. 2015; 9(1): 70-83.
Elster EA, Butler FK, Rasmussen TE: Implications of combat casualty care for mass casualty events. JAMA. 2013; 310(5): 475-476.
Kiyohara K, Kitamura T, Iwami T, et al.: Impact of the Great East Japan earthquake on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with cardiac origin in non-disaster areas [corrected]. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015; 69(2): 185-188.
Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al.: Part 8: Adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2010; 122(18)(suppl 3): S729-S767.
Reades R, Studnek JR, Garrett JS, et al.: Comparison of first-attempt success between tibial and humeral intraosseous insertions during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011; 15(2): 278-281.
Reades R, Studnek JR, Vandeventer S, et al.: Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011; 58(6): 509-516.
Levitan RM, Bortle CD, Snyder TA, et al.: Use of a battery-operated needle driver for intraosseous access by novice users: Skill acquisition with cadavers. Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 54(5): 692-694.
Hoskins SL, do Nascimento P Jr, Lima RM, et al.: Pharmacokinetics of intraosseous and central venous drug delivery during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2012; 83(1): 107-112.
Burgert J, Gegel B, Loughren M, et al.: Comparison of tibial intraosseous, sternal intraosseous, and intravenous routes of administration on pharmacokinetics of epinephrine during cardiac arrest: A pilot study. AANA J. 2012; 80(4)(suppl): S6-S10.
Johnson D, Garcia-Blanco J, Burgert J, et al.: Effects of humeral intraosseous versus intravenous epinephrine on pharmacokinetics and return of spontaneous circulation in a porcine cardiac arrest model: A randomized control trial. Ann Med Surg. 2015; 4(3): 306-310.
Voelckel WG, Lurie KG, McKnite S, et al.: Comparison of epinephrine with vasopressin on bone marrow blood flow in an animal model of hypovolemic shock and subsequent cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 2001; 29(8): 1587-1592.
Fulkerson J, Lowe R, Anderson T, et al.: Effects of intraosseous tibial vs. intravenous vasopressin in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest model. West J Emerg Med. 2016; 17(2): 222-228.
Swindle MM, Makin A, Herron AJ, et al.: Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol. 2012; 49(2): 344 -356.
Burgert JM, Johnson AD, Garcia-Blanco JC, et al.: An effective and reproducible model of ventricular fibrillation in crossbred Yorkshire Swine (Sus scrofa) for use in physiologic research. Comp Med. 2015; 65(5): 444-447.
Yokota M, Bathalon GP, Berglund LG: Assessment of male anthropometric trends and the effects on simulated heat stress responses. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 104(2): 297-302.
Marik PE. Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: A state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013; 27(1): 121-134.
Johnson D, Dial J, Ard J, et al.: Effects of intraosseous and intravenous administration of hextend(R) on time of administration and hemodynamics in a Swine model. J Spec Oper Med. 2014; 14(1): 79-85.
Hsieh Y, Korfmacher WA: Increasing speed and throughput when using HPLC-MS/MS systems for drug metabolism and pharmacokinetic screening. Curr Drug Metab. 2006; 7(5): 479-489.
Johnson D, Penaranda C, Phillips K, et al.: Effects of sternal intraosseous and intravenous administration of Hextend on time of administration and hemodynamics in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock. Am J Disaster Med. 2015; 10(1): 61-67.
Von Hoff DD, Kuhn JG, Burris HA 3rd, et al.: Does intraosseous equal intravenous? A pharmacokinetic study. Am J Emerg Med. 2008; 26(1): 31-38.
Yost J, Baldwin P, Bellenger S, et al.: The pharmacokinetics of intraosseous atropine in hypovolemic swine. Am J Disaster Med. 2015; 10(3): 217-222.
Wenzel V, Lindner KH, Krismer AC, et al.: Repeated administration of vasopressin but not epinephrine maintains coronary perfusion pressure after early and late administration during prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pigs. Circulation. 1999; 99(10): 1379-1384.
Paxton JH, Knuth TE, Klausner HA: Proximal humerus intraosseous infusion: A preferred emergency venous access. J Trauma. 2009; 67(3): 606-611.
Swindle MM: The development of swine models in drug discovery and development. Future Med Chem. 2012; 4(14): 1771-1772.
Costantino TG, Parikh AK, Satz WA, et al.: Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med. 2005; 46(5): 456-461.
Lapostolle F, Catineau J, Garrigue B, et al.: Prospective evaluation of peripheral venous access difficulty in emergency care. Intensive Care Med. 2007; 33(8): 14521457.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright 2007-2023, Weston Medical Publishing, LLC
All Rights Reserved
