Skip to main content

Improving vasopressor use in cardiac arrest


The Chain of Survival highlights the effectiveness of early recognition of cardiac arrest and call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation. Most patients, however, remain in cardiac arrest despite these interventions. Drug treatments, particularly the use of vasopressors, have been included in resuscitation algorithms since their inception. This narrative review describes the current evidence base for vasopressors and reports that adrenaline (1 mg) is highly effective at achieving return of spontaneous circulation (number needed to treat 4) but is less effective on long-term outcomes (survival to 30 days, number needed to treat 111) with uncertain effects on survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Randomised trials evaluating vasopressin, either as an alternative to or in addition to adrenaline, and high-dose adrenaline have failed to find evidence of improved long-term outcomes. There is a need for future trials to evaluate the interaction between steroids and vasopressin. Evidence for other vasopressors (e.g. noradrenaline, phenylephedrine) is insufficient to support or refute their use. The use of intravenous calcium chloride as a routine intervention in out of hospital cardiac arrest is not associated with benefit and may cause harm. The optimal route for vascular access between peripheral intravenous versus intraosseous routes is currently the subject of two large randomised trials. Intracardiac, endobronchial, and intramuscular routes are not recommended. Central venous administration should be limited to patients where an existing central venous catheter is in situ and patent.


Cardiac arrest is characterised by the sudden and catastrophic loss of cardiac output [1]. The condition affects hundreds of thousands of people around the world each year in both the pre-hospital and hospital setting [2]. Unless resuscitation is started promptly and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) achieved rapidly, few patients survive to make a meaningful recovery [3]. Whilst the early parts of the Chain of Survival (early recognition and call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation) are the most effective at improving outcomes from cardiac arrest, many patients remain refractory to these interventions [4]. Vasopressors have been used since the inception of modern-day CPR in patients where initial resuscitation efforts have failed to achieve ROSC. Early clinical guidelines produced by Safar et al. in the 1960’s recommended the inclusion of vasopressors including adrenaline, noradrenaline, phenylephrine, metaraminol and calcium in the Physicians Emergency Drug Bag [5]. This narrative review provides a state-of-the-art summary of recent evidence for vasopressor use during cardiac arrest. The reader is directed to the European Resuscitation Council and European Society Intensive Care Medicine guidelines for a detailed summary and recommendations regarding their use following ROSC [6].


The potent vasopressor effects of adrenaline have been recognised for nearly 150 years. Acting via alpha receptors located on vascular smooth muscle cells, adrenaline causes vasoconstriction, increasing aortic diastolic pressure and coronary perfusion pressure, thereby increasing the chances of ROSC. Whilst consistent and compelling evidence from animal and observational studies support a potent effect on ROSC, there was less certainty about adrenaline’s effect on patient-centred outcomes, such as 30-day survival, favourable neurological outcome, and health-related quality of life. The potentially adverse effects of adrenaline on long-term outcomes have been ascribed to increased cardiac instability after ROSC, immunomodulatory changes and reduced cerebral microvascular blood flow [7].

Standard dose adrenaline (1 mg)

Jacobs et al. led the first randomised trial comparing adrenaline to placebo in out of hospital cardiac arrest in Western Australia (The Pre-hospital Adrenaline for Cardiac Arrest (PACA trial)) [8]. The trial set out to recruit 5000 participants but closed to recruitment after 601 participants were randomised as plans to roll out the trial across Australia and New Zealand were unsuccessful. Approximately 10% (67) participants were excluded after randomisation as information about treatment allocation was unavailable. The trial found that compared with placebo, adrenaline use significantly improved the rate of pre-hospital ROSC (8.4% versus 23.5%, odds ratio (OR) 3.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–6.5) and hospital admission (13% versus 25.4%, OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.4–3.6). However, these early benefits did not translate into improved long-term survival or survival with a favourable neurological outcome.

Although not directly comparing adrenaline with placebo, a Norwegian study randomised 916 adults with out of hospital cardiac arrest to a strategy of drug use with a strategy of no drug use [9]. Most participants (79%) in the drug use arm received adrenaline compared to a minority (9%) in the no drug use arm. The pattern of findings was similar to the PACA trial in so far as showing a significant increase in ROSC with drug use (25% versus 40%, P < 0.01) and admission to hospital (29% versus 43%, P < 0.01) but no difference in survival to discharge or favourable neurological outcomes. An observational study which used these trial data to compare participants who actually received adrenaline with those that did not receive adrenaline found that adrenaline was associated with improved ROSC, but reduced survival to hospital discharge and worse neurological outcomes [10]. This study serves to highlight the limitations of observational studies and the influence of resuscitation time, something discussed in more detail below.

The Pre-hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration In Cardiac arrest 2 (PARAMEDIC2) trial is the largest cardiac arrest drug trial to have been conducted to date [11,12,13]. The study took place in 5 National Health Service Ambulance Services in the United Kingdom. The trial enroled 8014 participants between December 2014 and October 2017. The study showed similar outcomes for ROSC and survival to admission (see Fig. 1) as to those seen in PACA and the Norwegian study. The PARAMEDIC2 study showed for the first time that adrenaline improved long-term survival, but this did not translate into improved survival with a favourable neurological outcome. The number needed to treat (NNT) summaries presented in Fig. 1 highlight the significant impact that adrenaline has on improving early outcomes (NNT 4–6), but a much smaller effect on longer term outcomes (NNT > 100).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Key clinical outcomes from the PARAMEDIC2 trial. Abbreviations: NNT = number needed to treat; NNH = number needed to harm; NNB = number needed to benefit; ROSC = Return of Spontaneous Circulation, ADM = Admitted to hospital (survived event); DISCH = Discharge. Stickman picture = survival outcome; Brain picture = favourable neurological outcome

The trial was supported by a cost effectiveness analysis assessed within-trial (6 months) and extrapolated to a lifetime horizon [14]. Mean costs were significantly higher in the adrenaline arm with only marginally higher mean quality-adjusted life years. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was €1,946,953 (within trial) and €93,231 (lifetime horizon) per quality-adjusted life year, which falls outside the threshold typically regarded as cost effective by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The study found that more participants in the adrenaline arm were able to gift their organs for transplantation. In the adrenaline group, 40 donors gifted 115 organs, compared with 24 donors gifting 74 organs in the placebo group. When the decision-analytic modelling considered both the direct economic effects over the lifetimes of survivors and indirect economic effects in organ recipients, the mean incremental costs effectiveness ratio was €18,499 per quality-adjusted life year, a value likely to be considered as cost-effective in a UK setting.

Shockable versus non-shockable rhythms

A meta-analysis of the PACA and PARAMEDIC2 trials explored the effectiveness of adrenaline according to whether the initial rhythm was shockable or non-shockable. The effect on ROSC and survival to hospital discharge was much more pronounced in those with non-shockable rhythms (ROSC non-shockable OR 6.14 (95% CI 5.28–7.15) compared to shockable OR 2.30 (95% CI 1.88 -2.82); survival to discharge non-shockable OR 2.57 (95% CI 1.36–4.83) compared to shockable OR 1.26 (95% CI 0.93–1.71) [15].

An observational study drawn from data collected as part of the US Get with the Guidelines Resuscitation Registry explored survival outcomes in 34,820 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest due to an initially shockable rhythm. The study found that, in contrast to international guidelines, adrenaline was used before defibrillation in 9,630 (27.7%) patients. Treatment with adrenaline prior to defibrillation was strongly associated with delayed defibrillation (3 min versus 0 min). Using time-dependant propensity score matching across 9,011 matched pairs, the study found that adrenaline use before defibrillation was associated with a lower chance of survival (25.2% v 29.9%; adjusted OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.88) and favourable neurological survival (18.6% v 21.4%; adjusted OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76–0.92)) [16].

Timing of drug administration

Cardiac arrest is one of the most time critical medical emergencies. The Chain of Survival highlights the importance of early treatments through each link in the chain. Just as evidence exists for the importance of minimising the time to cardiac arrest recognition, activation of emergency services, initiation of CPR and defibrillation [17, 18], evidence exists highlighting the importance of early drug administration, particularly in those with initially non-shockable rhythms.

In an observational cohort study using data from the Get with the Guidelines Resuscitation Registry, Donnino et al.explored the influence of the time of adrenaline administration in 25,095 patients with an in-hospital cardiac arrest and an initial non-shockable rhythm [19]. The study reported a stepwise decrease in the primary outcome of survival in association with delayed adrenaline administration. Compared to the reference group of 1–3 min, the adjusted odds ratio for survival to hospital discharge when drugs were administered at 4–6 min was 0.91 (95% CI 0.82–1.00); at 7–9 min was 0.74 (95% CI 0.63–0.88) and at more than 9 min was 0.63 (0.52–0.76). A similar pattern of findings was observed for ROSC, survival to 24 h and survival with favourable neurological outcome. The findings were consistent across a series of sensitivity analyses which sought to adjust for confounding caused by delays in initiating resuscitation.

Findings from observational studies need to be interpreted with caution due to the risk of confounding. A particular issue is that of resuscitation time bias, whereby interventions given later in a cardiac arrest (e.g. drugs, tracheal intubation) are seemingly associated with a poorer outcome. [20] Rather than being a causal relationship, the association is caused by the fact that the duration of cardiac arrest itself is associated with worse outcomes. The post hoc analysis by the PARAMEDIC2 investigators provides unique insights into the time to treatment as it was able to compare the timing of drug administration between adrenaline and placebo groups [21]. As shown in Fig. 2, the effectiveness of adrenaline relative to placebo for the outcome of ROSC remains relatively constant over time. By contrast the difference in treatment effect between adrenaline and placebo decreases over time, such that by approximately 20 min the curves converge. These findings likely reflect the greater resilience to ischaemia of the heart relative to the brain. It may also explain, at least in part, the apparent paradox of the large effect of adrenaline on ROSC, small effect on long-term survival and uncertain effect on favourable neurological outcome.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effect of time of drug administration on return of spontaneous circulation and favourable neurological outcome. Figure is based on data presented in Perkins et al. The influence of time to adrenaline administration in the Paramedic 2 randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46(3): 426–36 [21]

High-dose adrenaline (5–10 mg)

The Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of vasopressors for cardiac arrest identified 13 (10 adult, 3 paediatric) randomised trials that compared standard dose (1 mg) with high dose (5-10 mg) adrenaline [7]. Many of the studies were conducted more than 20 years ago. Overall the certainty of evidence was rated as low or very low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Meta-analysis of 13 studies (7014 participants) showed a small increase in the rate of ROSC (risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% CI 1.02–1.29)). However there was no difference in survival to hospital discharge (RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.75–1.62); 10 studies, 6274 participants) or favourable neurological outcome (RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.65–1.26); 4 studies, 5803 participants).

Route of administration

A variety of routes for drug administration have been used over the years. These include intra-cardiac, central intravenous (IV), endobronchial, peripheral IV and intraosseous access (IO). Current guidelines do not recommend intracardiac or endobronchial administration due to the risk of injury / misplacement (intracardiac) or variable / uncertain absorption (endobronchial) [22, 23]. If central venous access is already in place then it should be the preferred route for drug administration due to the short transit time of drugs injected to reach the central circulation. The risks of misplacement and damage to adjacent structure through attempting central venous cannulation during CPR likely outweigh the benefits. [22, 23] The intramuscular route for adrenaline administration in cardiac arrest might facilitate very early drug administration, but ongoing uncertainties regarding its absorption preclude its routine use outside the research setting [24, 25].

The use of IO drug administration has been growing in recent years. In the PARAMEDIC2[26] one third of participants received drug treatment through the IO route whilst in the COCA (calcium for out of hospital cardiac arrest)[27] trial it was as high as two thirds. Potential advantages of the IO route are that it is easier and quicker to obtain IO rather than IV access [28]. Disadvantages include misplacement and variable drug absorption, although a post hoc analysis of survivors in the COCA trial showed similar ionised calcium levels on hospital admission between patients administered calcium chloride via the IO and IV route [29].

Observational studies comparing IO and IV drug administration are often limited by the risk of confounding due to resuscitation time bias as IO is often used as a rescue therapy after initial attempts at IV access have failed [30, 31]. The PARAMEDIC2 study, was able to provide unique insights in the potential efficacy of the IO route as it included matched patients who received placebo through both the intravenous and IO routes [26]. The study reported that the adjusted odds ratios for ROSC were similar in the IV (adjusted OR 4.07 (95% CI 3.42–4.85)) and IO groups (adjusted OR 3.98 (95% CI 2.86–5.53), p-value for interaction 0.90). Survival rates were not statistically different for long-term survival and favourable neurological outcomes between the IO and IV group.

The potential benefit of an IO first strategy in out of hospital cardiac arrest is being tested in ongoing trials in Denmark (NCT05205031)[32] and the United Kingdom (ISCRTN 14223494) [33].

Lower doses of adrenaline or continuous infusions

Using lower doses of adrenaline or adrenaline as a continuous infusion may reduce the risks of arrythmia and other adverse effects of adrenaline. However such an approach has not yet been test in a randomised controlled trial. The EpiDOSE study (NCT03826524) is exploring lower cumulative doses of adrenaline in patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest due to an initially shockable rhythm and may provide some insights into this question.

Dosing based on physiological response rather than fixed dosing

Paradis and colleagues were the first to report over 30 years ago on the importance of coronary perfusion pressure as a critical requirement for achieving ROSC [34]. Coronary perfusion pressure was calculated by measuring aortic pressure and subtracting right atrial pressure in 100 patients who were receiving treatment for out of hospital or emergency department cardiac arrest. The study identified a coronary perfusion pressure of > 15 mm Hg was a prerequisite to achieving ROSC. Subsequent studies have highlighted limitations of coronary perfusion pressure as a determinant of ROSC, in that it does not necessarily reflect coronary blood flow and as aortic diastolic pressures decline over time, results may have been confounded by resuscitation time bias. Nevertheless, the study provided a basis to test drug strategies which focus on the physiological response to their administration.

A piglet model of asphyxia-associated ventricular fibrillation (VF) tested the hypothesis that titrating compression depth to a systolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg and vasopressor administration to maintain coronary perfusion pressure ≥ 20 mmHg improved survival compared to standard advanced life support [35]. The survival rate was greater with haemodynamic-CPR group than standard care (100% v 60%, P = 0.03). The study served as the basis for a large multi-centre randomised trial that aimed to evaluate this novel strategy, in combination with performance debriefing, for paediatric cardiac arrest.

The Improving Outcomes from Paediatric Cardiac Arrest—the ICU-Resuscitation Project, was a parallel, hybrid stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial, involving 18 paediatric intensive care units (ICUs) from 10 North American hospitals [36]. The intervention comprised an ICU resuscitation quality improvement bundle consisting of (1) CPR training at the point of care on a manikin and (2) structured debriefings of cardiac arrest events focusing on physiological outcomes. The trial analysed 1074 paediatric cardiac arrests. More patients in the intervention group than the control group achieved adequate intra-arrest diastolic blood pressure (adjusted OR 2.18 (95% CI 1.04–4.»54)), but this did not translate into improvement in the primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurologic outcomes (53.8% v 52.4%, adjusted OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.76–1.53). There was also no significant difference between groups in ROSC or survival to hospital discharge (58.0% v 56.8%, adjusted OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.73–1.47). The authors speculate that the reasons the intervention was unsuccessful may be related to the study being underpowered due to a higher than anticipated survival rate in the control group. It is also suggested there may have been a ceiling effect from already optimised treatments in the control group and other factors (e.g. underlying illness) may have affected overall patient outcome.


Vasopressin, a naturally occurring hormone, given at high doses is a potent vasoconstrictor, acting via V1a receptors located on smooth muscle cells to increase systemic vascular resistance. It was recommended in resuscitation guidelines between 2000 to 2015 [7]. The Cochrane review of vasopressors in cardiac arrest examined the use of vasopressin as an alternative to adrenaline and in addition to adrenaline [7].

Vasopressin as an alternative to adrenaline

The review identified six randomised controlled trials that compared vasopressin with standard dose adrenaline [7]. Vasopressin improved survival to hospital admission (RR 1.27 (95% CI 1.04–1.54); 3 studies, 1954 participants), but had no effect on ROSC (RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.90–1.33); 6 studies, 2531 participants), survival at hospital discharge (RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.84–1.85); 6 studies, 2511 participants) or favourable neurological outcome (RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.54–1.25); 4 studies, 2406 participants). Evidence certainty was ranked as low for survival to hospital admission and very low for return of spontaneous which may explain, in part, the difference in observed effect despite the outcomes occurring at a similar time-point. The absence of consistent evidence that either drug is superior may be due to their broadly similar pharmacological effects as vasoconstrictors or, possibly, that that previous trials comparing the two drugs were underpowered to detect any small difference in effect.

Vasopressin in addition to adrenaline

Three randomised controlled trials compared vasopressin and adrenaline with adrenaline alone in out of hospital cardiac arrest [7]. The combination of vasopressin and adrenaline did not improve any short-term or long-term outcome (e.g. survival to hospital discharge RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.47–1.22); three trials, 3242 participants).

Vasopressin and corticosteroids

The potentially synergistic effects of vasopressin and corticosteroids have been explored in three randomised controlled trials during in-hospital cardiac arrest, published in 2009, 2013 (Greece)[37, 38] and 2021 (Denmark) [39, 40]. The trial interventions comprised 40 mg methylprednisolone and 20 IU vasopressin (up to five doses) in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving at least one dose of adrenaline (total sample size 869). Across studies, there was heterogeneity in the characteristics of enrolled patients and post-resuscitation steroid protocols.

A Bayesian, meta-analysis of individual participant data, using non-informative priors as the primary analysis reported the posterior odds ratio for ROSC as 2.13 (95% credible interval 1.51–2.82), whilst effects on long-term outcomes were uncertain (survival to hospital discharge OR 1.39 (95% credible interval 0.81–2.00); favourable neurological outcome 1.65 (95% credible intervals 0.91–2.45) [40]. In analyses with strongly optimistic priors, all outcomes were improved with the intervention whilst in the analyses with strongly pessimistic priors, only ROSC improved with the intervention. The probability of observing a beneficial effect for survival to hospital discharge (i.e. odds ratio > 1.0) ranged from 24% for a strong pessimistic prior to 99% for a strong optimistic prior. Treatment effects were consistent across 6 pre-defined sub-groups (age, time to study drug, witnessed, initial rhythm, aetiology and location). The authors of the review highlight the need for larger trials to determine the effect on long-term outcomes.


Calcium serves as both an inotrope and vasopressor. Until recently, despite a paucity of evidence it has been used relatively frequently in the treatment of patients with cardiac arrest in some systems [41]. The Danish Calcium Out of hospital Cardiac Arrest (COCA) randomised controlled trial examined the addition of calcium (up to two doses of 5 mmol calcium chloride) to standard advanced life support interventions (including adrenaline) amongst 391 adults with out of hospital cardiac arrest [27]. The trial was stopped early after an interim analysis suggested harm in the intervention arm. The final analysis found no difference in the rate of ROSC (19% v 27%, RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.49–1.03)), 30 day survival (5% v 9%, RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.27–1.18)) or favourable neurological outcome (4% v 8%, RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20–1.12)). The point estimates of the treatment effect for all outcomes were in the direction of harm. These data raise substantial concern about the routine use of calcium as a treatment for cardiac arrest. Whether there remains a role in situations such as cardiac arrest associated with hyperkalaemia requires further research.

Noradrenaline and phenylephedine

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation systematic review and meta-analysis of vasopressors in cardiac arrest identified only two randomised trials of noradrenaline and one which compared adrenaline with phenylephrine [42]. The trials were conducted more than 30 years ago and enrolled relatively low numbers of patients (580 for the noradrenaline trials, 65 the phenylephrine trial). Outcomes were similar between groups. Given the paucity of data, no treatment recommendations were made in relation to these drugs.


Early recognition of cardiac arrest and calling for help, early CPR and early defibrillation remain the most effective interventions for cardiac arrest. Where initial resuscitation efforts with these interventions are unsuccessful, the use of vasopressors is likely to have a small but important impact on survival. Adrenaline, whilst highly effective at restarting the heart has smaller effects on long-term outcomes (survival and favourable outcomes). To maximise any benefit from adrenaline, it should be given as soon as practicable in patients with non-shockable rhythms.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.


  1. Perkins GD, Jacobs IG, Nadkarni VM, Berg RA, Bhanji F, Biarent D, Bossaert LL, Brett SJ, Chamberlain D, de Caen AR, et al. Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update of the Utstein resuscitation registry templates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2014;96:328–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kiguchi T, Okubo M, Nishiyama C, Maconochie I, Ong MEH, Kern KB, Wyckoff MH, McNally B, Christensen EF, Tjelmeland I, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest across the World: first report from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). Resuscitation. 2020;152:39–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Perkins GD, Callaway CW, Haywood K, Neumar RW, Lilja G, Rowland MJ, Sawyer KN, Skrifvars MB, Nolan JP. Brain injury after cardiac arrest. Lancet. 2021;398(10307):1269–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ong MEH, Perkins GD, Cariou A. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: prehospital management. Lancet. 2018;391(10124):980–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Safar P, Bircher NG. Cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation. London: Laerdal Medical; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nolan JP, Sandroni C, Bottiger BW, Cariou A, Cronberg T, Friberg H, Genbrugge C, Haywood K, Lilja G, Moulaert VRM, et al. European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Guidelines 2021: post-resuscitation care. Resuscitation. 2021;161:220–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Finn J, Jacobs I, Williams TA, Gates S, Perkins GD. Adrenaline and vasopressin for cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD003179.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacobs IG, Finn JC, Jelinek GA, Oxer HF, Thompson PL. Effect of adrenaline on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2011;82(9):1138–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Olasveengen TM, Sunde K, Brunborg C, Thowsen J, Steen PA, Wik L. Intravenous drug administration during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(20):2222–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Olasveengen TM, Wik L, Sunde K, Steen PA. Outcome when adrenaline (epinephrine) was actually given vs. not given-post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Resuscitation. 2012;83(3):327–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perkins GD, Ji C, Deakin CD, Quinn T, Nolan JP, Scomparin C, Regan S, Long J, Slowther A, Pocock H, et al. A Randomized trial of epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):711–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perkins GD, Ji C, Achana F, Black JJ, Charlton K, Crawford J, de Paeztron A, Deakin C, Docherty M, Finn J, et al. Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2021;25(25):1–166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Haywood KL, Ji C, Quinn T, Nolan JP, Deakin CD, Scomparin C, Lall R, Gates S, Long J, Regan S, et al. Long term outcomes of participants in the PARAMEDIC2 randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2021;160:84–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Achana F, Petrou S, Madan J, Khan K, Ji C, Hossain A, Lall R, Slowther AM, Deakin CD, Quinn T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adrenaline for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):579.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Perkins GD, Kenna C, Ji C, Deakin CD, Nolan JP, Quinn T, Fothergill R, Gunson I, Pocock H, Rees N, et al. The effects of adrenaline in out of hospital cardiac arrest with shockable and non-shockable rhythms: Findings from the PACA and PARAMEDIC-2 randomised controlled trials. Resuscitation. 2019;140:55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans E, Swanson MB, Mohr N, Boulos N, Vaughan-Sarrazin M, Chan PS, Girotra S. American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation i: epinephrine before defibrillation in patients with shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest: propensity matched analysis. BMJ. 2021;375:e066534.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Olasveengen TM, Semeraro F, Ristagno G, Castren M, Handley A, Kuzovlev A, Monsieurs KG, Raffay V, Smyth M, Soar J, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: basic life support. Resuscitation. 2021;161:98–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Semeraro F, Greif R, Bottiger BW, Burkart R, Cimpoesu D, Georgiou M, Yeung J, Lippert FASL, Olasveengen TM, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: systems saving lives. Resuscitation. 2021;161:80–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Donnino MW, Salciccioli JD, Howell MD, Cocchi MN, Giberson B, Berg K, Gautam S, Callaway C. American Heart Association’s get with the guidelines-resuscitation i: time to administration of epinephrine and outcome after in-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms: retrospective analysis of large in-hospital data registry. BMJ. 2014;348:g3028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Andersen LW, Grossestreuer AV, Donnino MW. “Resuscitation time bias”-a unique challenge for observational cardiac arrest research. Resuscitation. 2018;125:79–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Perkins GD, Kenna C, Ji C, Deakin CD, Nolan JP, Quinn T, Scomparin C, Fothergill R, Gunson I, Pocock H, et al. The influence of time to adrenaline administration in the Paramedic 2 randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(3):426–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Perkins GD, Graesner JT, Semeraro F, Olasveengen T, Soar J, Lott C, Van de Voorde P, Madar J, Zideman D, Mentzelopoulos S, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: executive summary. Resuscitation. 2021;161:1–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soar J, Bottiger BW, Carli P, Couper K, Deakin CD, Djarv T, Lott C, Olasveengen T, Paal P, Pellis T, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: adult advanced life support. Resuscitation. 2021;161:115–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pugh AE, Stoecklein HH, Tonna JE, Hoareau GL, Johnson MA, Youngquist ST. Intramuscular adrenaline for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with faster drug delivery: a feasibility study. Resusc Plus. 2021;7:100142.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hooper A, Nolan JP, Rees N, Walker A, Perkins GD, Couper K. Drug routes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a summary of current evidence. Resuscitation. 2022;181:70–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nolan JP, Deakin CD, Ji C, Gates S, Rosser A, Lall R, Perkins GD. Intraosseous versus intravenous administration of adrenaline in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a secondary analysis of the PARAMEDIC2 placebo-controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(5):954–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vallentin MF, Granfeldt A, Meilandt C, Povlsen AL, Sindberg B, Holmberg MJ, Iversen BN, Maerkedahl R, Mortensen LR, Nyboe R, et al. Effect of intravenous or intraosseous calcium vs saline on return of spontaneous circulation in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;5:78.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Reades R, Studnek JR, Vandeventer S, Garrett J. Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(6):509–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andersen LW, Holmberg MJ, Granfeldt A, Vallentin MF. Calcium administration and post-cardiac arrest ionized calcium values according to intraosseous or intravenous administration-a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. Resuscitation. 2022;170:211–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hsieh YL, Wu MC, Wolfshohl J, d’Etienne J, Huang CH, Lu TC, Huang EP, Chou EH, Wang CH, Chen WJ. Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021;29(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hooper AJ, Nolan JP, Rees N, Walker A, Perkins GD, Couper K: Drug routes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a summary of current evidence. Resuscitation 2022, In press.

  32. IVIO Trial

  33. Pre-hospitAl RAndomised trial of MEDICation route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-3).

  34. Paradis NA, Martin GB, Rivers EP, Goetting MG, Appleton TJ, Feingold M, Nowak RM. Coronary perfusion pressure and the return of spontaneous circulation in human cardiopulmonary resuscitation. JAMA. 1990;263(8):1106–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Morgan RW, Kilbaugh TJ, Shoap W, Bratinov G, Lin Y, Hsieh TC, Nadkarni VM, Berg RA, Sutton RM. Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes Pi CLI: a hemodynamic-directed approach to pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HD-CPR) improves survival. Resuscitation. 2017;111:41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sutton RM, Wolfe HA, Reeder RW, Ahmed T, Bishop R, Bochkoris M, Burns C, Diddle JW, Federman M, Fernandez R, et al. Effect of physiologic point-of-care cardiopulmonary resuscitation training on survival with favorable neurologic outcome in cardiac arrest in pediatric ICUs: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(10):934–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mentzelopoulos SD, Malachias S, Chamos C, Konstantopoulos D, Ntaidou T, Papastylianou A, Kolliantzaki I, Theodoridi M, Ischaki H, Makris D, et al. Vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine and neurologically favorable survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(3):270–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mentzelopoulos SD, Zakynthinos SG, Tzoufi M, Katsios N, Papastylianou A, Gkisioti S, Stathopoulos A, Kollintza A, Stamataki E, Roussos C. Vasopressin, epinephrine, and corticosteroids for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(1):15–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Andersen LW, Isbye D, Kjaergaard J, Kristensen CM, Darling S, Zwisler ST, Fisker S, Schmidt JC, Kirkegaard H, Grejs AM, et al. Effect of vasopressin and methylprednisolone vs placebo on return of spontaneous circulation in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;8:96.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Holmberg MJ, Granfeldt A, Mentzelopoulos SD, Andersen LW. Vasopressin and glucocorticoids for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Resuscitation. 2022;171:48–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Moskowitz A, Ross CE, Andersen LW, Grossestreuer AV, Berg KM, Donnino MW. American Heart Association’s get with the guidelines-resuscitation I: trends over time in drug administration during adult in-hospital cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(2):194–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Holmberg MJ, Issa MS, Moskowitz A, Morley P, Welsford M, Neumar RW, Paiva EF, Coker A, Hansen CK, Andersen LW, et al. Vasopressors during adult cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2019;139:106–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


GDP is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.


GDP is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands.

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



GDP prepared the first draft of the paper which was revised by KC with the addition of important intellectual content. Both authors approved the version submitted for pubication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gavin D. Perkins.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

GDP - Chief investigator for the PARAMEDIC2 and PARAMEDIC3 which were funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Editor roles with the journals Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus. Volunteer roles with the European Resuscitation Council, Resuscitation Council UK and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. KC- Co-investigator for the PARAMEDIC3 trial, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Associate Editor for Resuscitation Plus. Volunteer roles with the European Resuscitation Council, Resuscitation Council UK and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perkins, G.D., Couper, K. Improving vasopressor use in cardiac arrest. Crit Care 27, 81 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: