Evidence on Adrenaline Use in Resuscitation and Its Relevance to Newborn Infants: A Non-Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Guidelines for newborn resuscitation state that if the heart rate does not increase despite adequate ventilation and chest compressions, adrenaline administration should be considered. However, controversy exists around the safety and effectiveness of adrenaline in newborn resuscitation. The aim of this review was to summarise a selection of the current knowledge about adrenaline during resuscitation and evaluate its relevance to newborn infants. METHODS: A search in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar until September 1, 2015, using search terms including adrenaline/epinephrine, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, death, severe brain injury, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and adrenaline versus vasopressin/placebo. RESULTS: Adult data indicate that adrenaline improves the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) but not survival to hospital discharge. Newborn animal studies reported that adrenaline might be needed to achieve ROSC. Intravenous administration (10-30 μg/kg) is recommended; however, if there is no intravenous access, a higher endotracheal dose (50-100 μg/kg) is needed. The safety and effectiveness of intraosseous adrenaline remain undetermined. Early and frequent dosing does not seem to be beneficial. In fact, negative hemodynamic effects have been observed, especially with doses ≥30 μg/kg intravenously. Little is known about adrenaline in birth asphyxia and in preterm infants, but observations indicate that hemodynamics and neurological outcomes may be impaired by adrenaline administration in these conditions. However, a causal relationship between adrenaline administration and outcomes cannot be established from the few available retrospective studies. Alternative vasoconstrictors have been investigated, but the evidence is scarce. CONCLUSION: More research is needed on the benefits and risks of adrenaline in asphyxia-induced bradycardia or cardiac arrest during perinatal transition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".