Search

BackgroundAims of the study were to determine the effects of humerus intraosseous (HIO) versus intravenous (IV) administration of epinephrine in a hypovolemic, pediatric pig model. We compared concentration maximum (Cmax), time to maximum concentration (Tmax), mean concentration (MC) over time and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).MethodsPediatric pig were randomly assigned to each group (HIO (n=7); IV (n=7); cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)+defibrillation (defib) (n=7) and CPR-only group (n=5)). The pig were anesthetized; 35% of the blood volume was exsanguinated. pigs were in arrest for 2 min, and then CPR was performed for 2 min. Epinephrine 0.01 mg/kg was administered 4 min postarrest by either route. Samples were collected over 5 min. After sample collection, epinephrine was administered every 4 min or until ROSC. The Cmax and MC were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography. Defibrillation began at 3 min postarrest and administered every 2 min or until ROSC or endpoint at 20 min after initiation of CPR.ResultsAnalysis indicated that the Cmax was significantly higher in the IV versus HIO group (p=0.001). Tmax was shorter in the IV group but was not significantly different (p=0.789). The MC was significantly greater in the IV versus HIO groups at 90 and 120 s (p2 indicated the IV group (5 out of 7) had significantly higher rate of ROSC than the HIO group (1 out of 7) (p=0.031). One subject in the CPR+defib and no subjects in the CPR-only groups achieved ROSC.DiscussionBased on the results of our study, the IV route is more effective than the HIO route.

Background Epidural analgesia and intravenous analgesia with opioids are two techniques for the relief of labor pain. The goal of this study was to develop a cost-identification model to quantify the costs (from society's perspective) of epidural analgesia compared with intravenous analgesia for labor pain. Because there is no valid method to assign a dollar value to differing levels of analgesia, the cost of each technique can be compared with the analgesic benefit (patient pain scores) of each technique. Methods The authors created a cost model for epidural and intravenous analgesia by reviewing the literature to determine the rates of associated clinical outcomes (benefit of each technique to produce analgesia) and complications (e.g., postdural puncture headache). The authors then analyzed data from their institution's cost-accounting system to determine the hospital cost for parturients admitted for delivery, estimated the cost of each complication, and performed a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the cost impact of changing key variables. A secondary analysis was performed assuming that the cost of nursing was fixed (did not change depending on the number of nursing interventions). Results If the cesarean section rate equals 20% for both intravenous and epidural analgesia, the additional expected cost per patient to society of epidural analgesia of labor pain ranges from $259 (assuming nursing costs in the labor and delivery suite do not vary with the number of nursing interventions) to $338 (assuming nursing costs do increase as the number of interventions increases) relative to the expected cost of intravenous analgesia for labor pain. This cost difference results from increased professional costs and complication costs associated with epidural analgesia. Conclusions Epidural analgesia is more costly than intravenous analgesia. How the cost of the anesthesiologist and nursing care is calculated affects how much more costly epidural analgesia is relative to intravenous analgesia. Published studies have determined that epidural analgesia provides relief of labor pain superior to intravenous analgesia, quantified in one study as 40 mm better on a 100-mm scale during the first stage of labor and 29 mm better during the second stage of labor. Patients, physicians, and society need to weigh the value of improved pain relief from epidural analgesia versus the increased cost of epidural analgesia.