Evidence Hub

Comparative effectiveness of vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine-based regimens in cardiac arrest: A network Meta-analysis of clinical trials

Saghafi F, Dehghani MH, Erami S, Salehi-Abargouei A, Omrani MA, Hoseinzade F, Shojaeifard M, Sahebnasagh A

The American journal of emergency medicine, 2026

21,768 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive efforts to improve survival in cardiac arrest (CA), the optimal pharmacologic strategy during resuscitation remains uncertain. While prior meta-analyses have explored individual drug classes, the relative effectiveness of combined regimens remains inadequately defined. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of triple therapy with vasopressin (VP), steroids, and epinephrine (EP) in CA patients.

METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and other bibliographic databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of steroids, epinephrine, and vasopressin in CA patients were included. In trials that involved additional agents (e.g., lidocaine), only the data pertaining to epinephrine/vasopressor-based interventions were extracted and synthesized to ensure comparability with the study scope. Out of 3453 identified studies, 36 RCTs involving 21,768 patients were included. Interventions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation were categorized as monotherapy, double therapy, or triple therapy (VSE). Primary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, 24-h survival, and survival to hospital discharge. Neurological outcomes were also evaluated to determine functional recovery, when consistently reported, although heterogeneity of measurement…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 21,768 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free