Summary

Objective: To compare the effects of central versus peripheral drug administration on the rate of return of organised electrical activity and/or spontaneous circulation during CPR.

Study design: Randomized clinical trial.

Study population: Hospitalized patients and patients presenting at the emergency department, older than 18 years, requiring CPR.

Intervention: Central venous access

Main study parameters/endpoints: Combined primary endpoint: rate of appearance of organised electrical activity or return of spontaneous circulation.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: All patients are treated according to the guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council, which are endorsed by the local VUMC CPR-committee. Central access will be obtained by cannulation of the external or internal jugular vein. To avoid interference with initial management, central venous access will be obtained after initiation of chest compressions, first attempt at defibrillation (if applicable), securing the airway and obtaining a peripheral access.

All resuscitated patients require vascular access and almost all successfully resuscitated patients require central venous access. Obtaining central access during CPR may be associated with a slightly higher complication rate, such as arterial puncture and pneumothorax. Possible benefits for study subjects are a higher success rate of CPR.

[download-attachments container="div" style="list" display_icon="1" display_count="1" display__size="0"]

References

1. Neumar et al. Part 8: Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Circulation 2010, 122:S729-S767.
2. Barsan et al. differences in drug delivery with periferal en central venous injections: normal perfusion. Am J emerg Med 1986 jan;4:1-3.
3. Voorhees et al. Regional blood flow during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs. Crit Care Med. 1980;8:134-36.
4. Goldberg. Cardiopulmonary arrest. N Engl J Med 1974;290:381-85.
5. Emerman et al. Effect of injection site on circulation times during cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 1988;16:1138-41.
6. Talit U, et al. Pharmacokinetic differences between peripheral and central drug administration during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985 Nov;6:1073-7
7. Barsan et al. Lidociane levels during CPR: differences after peripheral venous, central venous and intracardiac injections. Ann Emerg Med 1981:10;73-78
8. Hedges et al. Central versus peripheral intravenous routes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med. 1984;2:385-90.
9. Kuhn et al. Peripheral vs central circulation times during CPR: A pilot study. Ann Emerg Med 1981;10:417-419.
10. Reades et al. Intraosseous Versus Intravenous Vascular Access During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011; 58: 509.
11. Leidel et al. Comparison of intraosseous versus central venous vascular access in adults under resuscitation in the emergency department with inaccessible peripheral veins. Resuscitation; E-pub Sep 3 2011.
12. Hoskins et al. Pharmacokinetics of intraosseous and central venous drug delivery during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011;83:107-12