Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The comparison of humeral intraosseous and intravenous administration of vasopressin on return of spontaneous circulation and pharmacokinetics in a hypovolemic cardiac arrest swine model

Mark H. Wimmer, BSN, Kenneth Heffner, BSN, Michael Smithers, BSN, Richard Culley, BSN, Jennifer Coyner, PhD, CRNA, Michael Loughren, PhD, CRNA, Don Johnson, PhD


Introduction: The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends intravenous (IV) or intraosseous (IO) vasopressin in Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS). Obtaining IV access in hypovolemic cardiac arrest patients can be difficult, and IO access is often obtained in these life threatening situations. No studies have been conducted to determine the effects of humeral IO (HIO) access with vasopressin in the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Our study compared the kinetics of vasopressin and ROSC with HIO with IV access in the hypovolemic swine model.

Methods: Twenty-two Yorkshire swine were divided into three groups: HIO (n = 7), IV (n = 8), and a control group (n = 7). The IV and HIO group received vasopressin and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), while the control group received only CPR. All subjects were exsanguinated 31 percent of their blood volume, placed in cardiac arrest, and resuscitated per ACLS. Subjects that achieved ROSC were then monitored for 20 minutes. Blood samples (10 mL) collected at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 minutes after vasopressin injection and analyzed for maximum concentration (Cmax) and time to maximum concentration (Tmax). Data were analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and a Fisher's Exact Test.

Results: ROSC was achieved in every subject that received vasopressin via the HIO route. Data analysis using a MANOVA pairwise comparison revealed no difference between mean Cmax (p = 0.601) and Tmax (p = 0.771) of vasopressin administered IV versus HIO routes. Analysis of the mean serum concentrations at time intervals using a repeated measures analysis of variance found no difference (p > 0.05). A Fisher's Exact Test revealed no difference in rate of ROSC between HIO and IV groups (p > 0.05). Odds ratio determined that there was a 33 times higher chance of survival among HIO subjects versus control (CPR and Defibrillation; p = 0.03) and no difference in the survivability of the HIO or IV groups (p = 0.52).

Conclusion: The data from this study strongly suggest that there is no significant difference in ROSC, time to ROSC, hemodynamics, or pharmacokinetics between HIO vasopressin and IV vasopressin. This research reinforces current AHA guidelines recommending the use of HIO route early over delaying care awaiting IV access.


intraosseous, humerus, vasopressin, cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, pharmacokinetics

Full Text:



Rea TD, Pearce RM, Raghunathan TE, et al.: Incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Am J Cardiol. 2004; 93(12): 1455-1460.

Atwood C, Eisenberg MS, Herlitz J, et al.: Incidence of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe. Resuscitation.

; 67(1): 75-80.

Rea TD, Eisenberg MS, Sinibaldi G, et al.: Incidence of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States. Resuscitation. 2004; 63(1): 17-24.

Leidel BA, Kirchhoff C: Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operative Medizen [Intraosseous infusion for adults]. Der Chirurg. 2008; 79(4): 315-326.

Vanden Hoek TL, Morrison LJ, Shuster M, et al.: Part 12: Cardiac arrest in special situations: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2010; 122(18)(suppl 3): S829-S861.

Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al.: Part 8: Cardiac arrest in special situations: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2010; 122(18)(suppl 3): S729-S767.

Dabrowska A, Telec W: New guidelines of basic and advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) American Heart Association (AHA). Wiadomosci Lekarskie. 2011; 64(2): 127-131.

Krismer AC, Dunser MW, Lindner KH, et al.: Vasopressin during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and different shock states: A review of the literature. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2006; 6(1): 51-68.

Tsai MH, Huang HC, Peng YS, et al.: Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency in cirrhotic patients with acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding: Risk factors and association with outcome*. Crit Care Med. 2014; 42(12): 2546-2555.

Moraes JM, Vane MF, Rodrigues Dde F, et al.: Effects of catecholamines on volemic replacement with saline solution and the impact on heart rate variability in rabbits subjected to hemorrhage. A study by spectral analysis. Acta Cir Bras. 2014; 29(11): 703-710.

Hannon JP, Bossone CA, Wade CE: Normal physiological values for conscious pigs used in biomedical research. Lab Anim Sci. 1990; 40(3): 293-298.

Varvarousi G, Goulas S, Agrogiannis G, et al.: Epinephrine, vasopressin, and nitroglycerin improve neurologic outcome in porcine asphyxial cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med. 2012; 30(8): 1549-1554.

(U.S.) NAP: Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011.

Singbartl K, Innerhofer P, Radvan J, et al.: Hemostasis and hemodilution: A quantitative mathematical guide for clinical practice. Anesth Analg. 2003; 96(4): 929-935, table of contents.

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. Comparat Med. 2015; 65(5): 444-447.

Holmes CL, Landry DW, Granton JT: Science review: Vasopressin and the cardiovascular system part 2—Clinical physiology. Crit Care. 2004; 8(1): 15-23.

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.

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.

Wenzel V, Lindner KH: Vasopressin combined with epinephrine during cardiac resuscitation: A solution for the future? Crit Care. 2006; 10(1): 125.

Sauaia A, Moore FA, Moore EE, et al.: Epidemiology of trauma deaths: A reassessment. J Trauma. 1995; 38(2): 185-193.

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 cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 2001; 29(8): 1587-1592.



  • There are currently no refbacks.