Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 643

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Comparison of Vasopressin and Epinephrine for Out-of-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Open access
Wenzel, Volker, Krismer, Anette C., Arntz, H. Richard, Sitter, Helmut, Stadlbauer, Karl H., Lindner, Karl H.·2004·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vasopressin is an alternative to epinephrine for vasopressor therapy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but clinical experience with this treatment has been limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive two injections of either 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine, followed by additional treatment with epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission, and the secondary end point was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1219 patients underwent randomization; 33 were excluded because of missing study-drug codes. Among the remaining 1186 patients, 589 were assigned to receive vasopressin and 597 to receive epinephrine. The two treatment groups had similar clinical profiles. There were no significant differences in the rates of hospital admission between the vasopressin group and the epinephrine group either among patients with ventricular fibrillation (46.2 percent vs. 43.0 percent, P=0.48) or among those with pulseless electrical activity (33.7 percent vs. 30.5 percent, P=0.65). Among patients with asystole, however, vasopressin use was associated with significantly higher rates of hospital admission (29.0 percent, vs. 20.3 percent in the epinephrine group; P=0.02) and hospital discharge (4.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.04). Among 732 patients in whom spontaneous circulation was not restored with the two injections of the study drug, additional treatment with epinephrine resulted in significant improvement in the rates of survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge in the vasopressin group, but not in the epinephrine group (hospital admission rate, 25.7 percent vs. 16.4 percent; P=0.002; hospital discharge rate, 6.2 percent vs. 1.7 percent; P=0.002). Cerebral performance was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of vasopressin were similar to those of epinephrine in the management of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless electrical activity, but vasopressin was superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole. Vasopressin followed by epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine alone in the treatment of refractory cardiac arrest.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa025431

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 643

Metadata

Authors
Wenzel, V., Krismer, A. C., Arntz, H. R., Sitter, H., Stadlbauer, K. H., & Lindner, K. H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2004-01-08
Volume
350
Issue
2
Pages
105-113
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2110944531
Cited by
643
References
0
FWCI
89.57
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 Vasopressin and Epinephrine for Out-of-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa025431
The paper
Wenzel, V., Krismer, A. C., Arntz, H. R., Sitter, H., Stadlbauer, K. H., & Lindner, K. H. (2004). A Comparison of Vasopressin and Epinephrine for Out-of-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa025431

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.