The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Standard-Dose and High-Dose Epinephrine in Cardiac Arrest outside the Hospital
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Experimental and uncontrolled clinical evidence suggests that intravenous epinephrine in doses higher than currently recommended may improve outcome after cardiac arrest. We conducted a prospective, multicenter study comparing standard-dose epinephrine with high-dose epinephrine in the management of cardiac arrest outside the hospital. METHODS: Adult patients were enrolled in the study if they remained in ventricular fibrillation, or if they had asystole or electromechanical dissociation, at the time the first drug was to be administered to treat the cardiac arrest. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 0.02 mg of epinephrine per kilogram of body weight (standard-dose group, 632 patients) or 0.2 mg per kilogram (high-dose group, 648 patients), both given intravenously. RESULTS: In the standard-dose group 190 patients (30 percent) had a return of spontaneous circulation, as compared with 217 patients (33 percent) in the high-dose group; 136 patients (22 percent) in the standard-dose group and 145 patients (22 percent) in the high-dose group survived to be admitted to the hospital. Twenty-six patients (4 percent) in the standard-dose group and 31 (5 percent) in the high-dose group survived to discharge from the hospital. Ninety-two percent of the patients discharged in the standard-dose group and 94 percent in the high-dose group were conscious at the time of hospital discharge. None of the differences in outcome between the groups were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we were unable to demonstrate any difference in the overall rate of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, or neurologic outcome between patients treated with a standard dose of epinephrine and those treated with a high dose.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Panchal, A. R., Bartos, J. A., Cabañas, J. G., Donnino, M. W., Drennan, I. R., Hirsch, K. G., Kudenchuk, P. J., Kurz, M. C., Lavonas, E. J., Morley, P. T., et al. (2020) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000916 · Cited by 2,105
Neumar, R. W., Otto, C. W., Link, M. S., Kronick, S. L., Shuster, M., Callaway, C. W., Kudenchuk, P. J., Ornato, J. P., McNally, B., Silvers, S. M., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.110.970988 · Cited by 1,634
Topjian, A. A., Raymond, T. T., Atkins, D., Chan, M., Duff, J. P., Joyner, B. L., Lasa, J. J., Lavonas, E. J., Levy, A., Mahgoub, M., et al. (2020) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000901 · Cited by 1,258
Link, M. S., Berkow, L. C., Kudenchuk, P. J., Halperin, H. R., Hess, E. P., Moitra, V. K., Neumar, R. W., O’Neil, B. J., Paxton, J. H., Silvers, S. M., et al. (2015) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000261 · Cited by 1,150
Bhananker, S. M., Ramamoorthy, C., Geiduschek, J. M., Posner, K. L., Domino, K. B., Haberkern, C. M., Campos, J. S., & Morray, J. P. (2007) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000268712.00756.dd · Cited by 720
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, C. G., Martin, D. R., Pepe, P. E., Stueven, H., Cummins, R. O., Gonzalez, E., & Jastremski, M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1992-10-08
- Volume
- 327
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1051-1055
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2330246420
- Cited by
- 452
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Standard-Dose and High-Dose Epinephrine in Cardiac Arrest outside the Hospital. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199210083271503
- The paper
- Brown, C. G., Martin, D. R., Pepe, P. E., Stueven, H., Cummins, R. O., Gonzalez, E., & Jastremski, M. (1992). A Comparison of Standard-Dose and High-Dose Epinephrine in Cardiac Arrest outside the Hospital. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199210083271503
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.