Noradrenaline seems superior to adrenaline in patients with cardiogenic shock

Noradrenaline (or norepinephrine) seems a safer choice than adrenaline (epinephrine) in patients undergoing acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock, according to the outcomes of this randomized study. Patients receiving adrenaline more often developed refractory shock, which led to early termination of this study.

The administration of adrenaline was associated to over increased cardiac rate, and prolonged acidosis and lactic acidosis.

 

Even though both drugs are commonly used, different countries ─even different institutions within the same countries─ have different protocols for patients in cardiogenic shock. This was the rationale behind the study.

 

A total of 57 patients in cardiogenic shock from 9 hospitals of France where randomized to adrenaline (n=27) vs noradrenaline (n=30). There were no differences in the number of patients receiving intra-aortic balloon pump after PCI.


Read also: Invasive Strategy in Frail Patients Is Safe.


The primary end point, cardiac index evolution or change, showed no significant differences between the use of adrenaline and noradrenaline.

 

Similarly, there were no differences in most hemodynamics secondary end points (mean blood pressure, systemic vascular resistance, cardiac index, pulmonary arterial pressure, wedge pressure, ejection fraction, biomarkers or arrythmia).

 

At 60 days, mortality with adrenaline was 52% vs 37% in the noradrenaline group (p=0.25).


Read also: Should Sex Be Taken into Account with Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization?


Despite the latter, the adrenaline group presented higher cardiac rate and higher levels of lactic acidosis but received less additional inotropic for support.

 

A significant difference was observed in the adrenaline group: a higher refractory shock (37% vs 7%; p=0.008). This was not a prespecified end point since it was not anticipated as a problem, and this finding led to study termination.

 

There might be different types of cardiogenic shock requiring tailored treatments. For instance, bradycardic patients in theory could benefit from adrenaline, compared to tachycardic patients, and patients with ventricular arrythmia.

 

Original title: Epinephrine versus norepinephrine for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

Reference: Levy B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:173-182.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...

Radial Patency in Coronary Procedures: Is Heparin Enough or Should We Aim for Distal Transradial Access?

Transradial access is the preferred route in most coronary procedures due to its proven reduction in mortality compared to transfemoral access. However, one of...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Measuring Post-TAVI Gradients and Their Implications: Are Invasive and Echocardiographic Assessments Comparable?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered the treatment of choice for a significant proportion of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Outcomes have improved...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...