I have a random question about the physiology of ETT epi, and I'm wondering if you lovely folks (especially the providers) can help me out. I meant to ask in my NRP renewal last week but forgot...
The goal of transition is to decrease pulmonary vascular resistance and increase systemic vascular resistance. Epi is a profound vasoconstrictor. I understand that, theoretically, ETT epi should be absorbed into systemic circulation; however, if your kid is so sick in the DR that they need compressions and epi, they're going to be at very high risk for PPHN. It seems like the last thing you'd want to do to a high-risk PPHN kid during transition is to sprinkle their lungs with a vasoconstrictor... Especially when the actual treatment for severe PPHN is inhaled nitric as a selective pulmonary vasodilator and systemic pressors (up to and including epi) for systemic vasoconstriction in order to compete with and overcome super high PVR... ETT epi is the literal exact opposite of that.
I understand that ETT epi is relatively ineffective, that absorption can be hit-or-miss, and that we only give it as a last-ditch effort while we're trying to establish IV access. In theory, I get the idea that 'some epi is better than no epi' when you're profoundly bradycardic, and that you're in dire straits if you're giving ETT epi at all. However, physiologically, putting epi in the pulmonary vascular bed during transition seems like it would make the problem so much worse instead of making it better. Isn't ETT epi just going to throw fuel onto the dumpster fire that is PPHN?
Thoughts?
Featured Replies
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
I have a random question about the physiology of ETT epi, and I'm wondering if you lovely folks (especially the providers) can help me out. I meant to ask in my NRP renewal last week but forgot...
The goal of transition is to decrease pulmonary vascular resistance and increase systemic vascular resistance. Epi is a profound vasoconstrictor. I understand that, theoretically, ETT epi should be absorbed into systemic circulation; however, if your kid is so sick in the DR that they need compressions and epi, they're going to be at very high risk for PPHN. It seems like the last thing you'd want to do to a high-risk PPHN kid during transition is to sprinkle their lungs with a vasoconstrictor... Especially when the actual treatment for severe PPHN is inhaled nitric as a selective pulmonary vasodilator and systemic pressors (up to and including epi) for systemic vasoconstriction in order to compete with and overcome super high PVR... ETT epi is the literal exact opposite of that.
I understand that ETT epi is relatively ineffective, that absorption can be hit-or-miss, and that we only give it as a last-ditch effort while we're trying to establish IV access. In theory, I get the idea that 'some epi is better than no epi' when you're profoundly bradycardic, and that you're in dire straits if you're giving ETT epi at all. However, physiologically, putting epi in the pulmonary vascular bed during transition seems like it would make the problem so much worse instead of making it better. Isn't ETT epi just going to throw fuel onto the dumpster fire that is PPHN?
Thoughts?