Cardiovascular pharmacology I

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of bicarbonate during cadiopulmonary resuscitation remains controversial. The present standards, suggested in large part by the investigations of Bishop and Weisfeldt, and the acknowledged toxicity of treatment with bicarbonate led to aggressive use of hyperventilation, the frequent monitoring of pH, and a reduction in bicarbonate administration. However, to date no studies have indicated an improvement in outcome to support the importance of these changes. Instead, controversy continues concerning the most appropriate buffer and whether the pH gradient induced between venous and arterial beds during CPR is of importance. To date, a viable alternative regimen has not been proposed. Thus, at present there is little new data upon which to base a major change in strategy, although the logic of reducing further the use of bicarbonate seems compelling. The choice of antiarrhythmic therapy is equally difficult. Initially, experimental studies suggested a more potent antifibrillatory effect for bretylium than for lidocaine. Subsequent studies have challenged these initial experimental results and clinical data have failed to indicate the benefit of one drug over the other. There is little information to suggest that these agents are more effective than the aggressive use of defibrillation alone in patients with ventricular fibrillation. It therefore seems improbable that a definitive decision concerning the use of one or another of these agents can be made.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCirculation
Volume74
Issue number6 II MONOGR. 126
StatePublished - 1986
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bicarbonates
Pharmacology
Proton-Motive Force
Hyperventilation
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Ventricular Fibrillation
Lidocaine
Resuscitation
Buffers
Therapeutics
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Jaffe, A. S. (1986). Cardiovascular pharmacology I. Circulation, 74(6 II MONOGR. 126).

Cardiovascular pharmacology I. / Jaffe, Allan S.

In: Circulation, Vol. 74, No. 6 II MONOGR. 126, 1986.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jaffe, AS 1986, 'Cardiovascular pharmacology I', Circulation, vol. 74, no. 6 II MONOGR. 126.
Jaffe AS. Cardiovascular pharmacology I. Circulation. 1986;74(6 II MONOGR. 126).
Jaffe, Allan S. / Cardiovascular pharmacology I. In: Circulation. 1986 ; Vol. 74, No. 6 II MONOGR. 126.
@article{1b18eae7fe3547a4bcaec7a812eb6fda,
title = "Cardiovascular pharmacology I",
abstract = "The use of bicarbonate during cadiopulmonary resuscitation remains controversial. The present standards, suggested in large part by the investigations of Bishop and Weisfeldt, and the acknowledged toxicity of treatment with bicarbonate led to aggressive use of hyperventilation, the frequent monitoring of pH, and a reduction in bicarbonate administration. However, to date no studies have indicated an improvement in outcome to support the importance of these changes. Instead, controversy continues concerning the most appropriate buffer and whether the pH gradient induced between venous and arterial beds during CPR is of importance. To date, a viable alternative regimen has not been proposed. Thus, at present there is little new data upon which to base a major change in strategy, although the logic of reducing further the use of bicarbonate seems compelling. The choice of antiarrhythmic therapy is equally difficult. Initially, experimental studies suggested a more potent antifibrillatory effect for bretylium than for lidocaine. Subsequent studies have challenged these initial experimental results and clinical data have failed to indicate the benefit of one drug over the other. There is little information to suggest that these agents are more effective than the aggressive use of defibrillation alone in patients with ventricular fibrillation. It therefore seems improbable that a definitive decision concerning the use of one or another of these agents can be made.",
author = "Jaffe, {Allan S}",
year = "1986",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
journal = "Circulation",
issn = "0009-7322",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6 II MONOGR. 126",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cardiovascular pharmacology I

AU - Jaffe, Allan S

PY - 1986

Y1 - 1986

N2 - The use of bicarbonate during cadiopulmonary resuscitation remains controversial. The present standards, suggested in large part by the investigations of Bishop and Weisfeldt, and the acknowledged toxicity of treatment with bicarbonate led to aggressive use of hyperventilation, the frequent monitoring of pH, and a reduction in bicarbonate administration. However, to date no studies have indicated an improvement in outcome to support the importance of these changes. Instead, controversy continues concerning the most appropriate buffer and whether the pH gradient induced between venous and arterial beds during CPR is of importance. To date, a viable alternative regimen has not been proposed. Thus, at present there is little new data upon which to base a major change in strategy, although the logic of reducing further the use of bicarbonate seems compelling. The choice of antiarrhythmic therapy is equally difficult. Initially, experimental studies suggested a more potent antifibrillatory effect for bretylium than for lidocaine. Subsequent studies have challenged these initial experimental results and clinical data have failed to indicate the benefit of one drug over the other. There is little information to suggest that these agents are more effective than the aggressive use of defibrillation alone in patients with ventricular fibrillation. It therefore seems improbable that a definitive decision concerning the use of one or another of these agents can be made.

AB - The use of bicarbonate during cadiopulmonary resuscitation remains controversial. The present standards, suggested in large part by the investigations of Bishop and Weisfeldt, and the acknowledged toxicity of treatment with bicarbonate led to aggressive use of hyperventilation, the frequent monitoring of pH, and a reduction in bicarbonate administration. However, to date no studies have indicated an improvement in outcome to support the importance of these changes. Instead, controversy continues concerning the most appropriate buffer and whether the pH gradient induced between venous and arterial beds during CPR is of importance. To date, a viable alternative regimen has not been proposed. Thus, at present there is little new data upon which to base a major change in strategy, although the logic of reducing further the use of bicarbonate seems compelling. The choice of antiarrhythmic therapy is equally difficult. Initially, experimental studies suggested a more potent antifibrillatory effect for bretylium than for lidocaine. Subsequent studies have challenged these initial experimental results and clinical data have failed to indicate the benefit of one drug over the other. There is little information to suggest that these agents are more effective than the aggressive use of defibrillation alone in patients with ventricular fibrillation. It therefore seems improbable that a definitive decision concerning the use of one or another of these agents can be made.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023001503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023001503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 74

JO - Circulation

JF - Circulation

SN - 0009-7322

IS - 6 II MONOGR. 126

ER -