Epinephrine (adrenaline) has been a cornerstone of advanced cardiac life support algorithms for over five decades. Despite its near-universal adoption in resuscitation protocols, accumulating evidence raises serious questions about its benefit—particularly for patients presenting in ventricular fibrillation (VF). Recent high-quality observational data, network meta-analyses, and emerging research into alternative agents collectively suggest that epinephrine's alpha-adrenergic vasopressor effects may paradoxically harm the very patients most likely to survive cardiac arrest. This paper critically examines the evidence supporting removal of epinephrine from VF-specific treatment algorithms and explores the potential role of alternative pharmacological strategies, including esmolol.
Introduction
Ventricular fibrillation represents the most survivable initial cardiac arrest rhythm. When witnessed, rapid defibrillation within minutes can yield neurologically intact survival rates exceeding 50%. Yet despite this biological advantage, outcomes for VF arrest remain disappointingly poor once the rhythm becomes refractory to initial defibrillation attempts. Standard Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) algorithms dictate that epinephrine 1 mg be administered every three to five minutes throughout resuscitation, regardless of initial rhythm. This protocol traces its pharmacological rationale to animal studies conducted in the 1960s—a foundation that has never been robustly validated in human clinical trials.
The theoretical basis for epinephrine in cardiac arrest centers on its potent alpha-1 adrenergic receptor agonism, which increases systemic vascular resistance and aortic diastolic pressure, thereby improving coronary perfusion pressure during CPR. While this mechanism is physiologically sound, its net clinical effect in patients with shockable rhythms may be far more complex—and potentially counterproductive. The same adrenergic stimulation that augments coronary perfusion also causes platelet activation, vasoconstriction in the cerebral microcirculation, increased myocardial oxygen demand, and heightened risk of dysrhythmia following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). In VF specifically, where the primary therapeutic intervention is defibrillation, the question is whether epinephrine adds meaningful benefit or introduces harm.
The PARAMEDIC-2 Trial: Survival Without Neurological Benefit
The landmark PARAMEDIC-2 trial (Perkins et al., 2018) remains the largest randomized controlled trial of epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), enrolling 8,014 patients across five UK ambulance services. While epinephrine demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in 30-day survival (3.2% vs. 2.4%; NNT = 112) compared to placebo, the trial yielded no significant improvement in the primary endpoint of favorable neurological outcome. More troublingly, the proportion of survivors with severe neurological impairment was substantially higher in the epinephrine group (31.0% vs. 17.8%). For every 112 patients treated, one death was prevented—yet many of those survivors faced significant disability. In contrast, early defibrillation carries an NNT of just 5, and bystander CPR an NNT of 15, illustrating the comparatively poor therapeutic leverage of epinephrine. The PARAMEDIC-2 data do not distinguish outcomes by initial rhythm, making rhythm-specific conclusions difficult; however, subsequent analyses and new data have begun to fill this gap.
Epinephrine in Refractory VF: A Consistently Negative Signal
A 2025 population-based study by Fanet and colleagues provides perhaps the most compelling rhythm-specific evidence to date. Drawing on a large Paris-region registry spanning 2011–2021, investigators identified 3,163 patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with refractory shockable rhythms—defined as persistent VF after at least three defibrillations. Of these, 81% received epinephrine. The primary outcome—survival with favorable neurological outcome (CPC 1–2) at hospital discharge—was achieved in only 11% of patients who received epinephrine, compared to 50% of those who did not. After rigorous adjustment using multivariate logistic regression, propensity score analysis, and inverse probability weighting, epinephrine use remained independently and strongly associated with worse outcomes (adjusted OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.19–0.31, p < 0.001). This finding was consistent across all sensitivity analyses. The magnitude of this association—an approximately 76% reduction in odds of favorable neurological outcome—challenges the systematic use of epinephrine in this specific patient population and demands urgent reevaluation of current protocols.
Network Meta-Analysis: Divergent Effects by Rhythm
Fernando and colleagues (CHEST, 2023) conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials encompassing 21,594 OHCA patients, making it the most comprehensive RCT-level synthesis of epinephrine evidence available. Across all rhythms, standard-dose epinephrine improved ROSC and survival to hospital admission but was not associated with improved survival to discharge or favorable functional outcome. Critically, when subgroup analyses were performed by initial rhythm, the results diverged sharply. Among patients with initial shockable rhythms—VF and pulseless VT—standard-dose epinephrine showed no benefit in overall survival, with the point estimate directionally suggesting potential harm. By contrast, among patients with non-shockable rhythms (PEA and asystole), epinephrine was associated with improved overall survival. The investigators explicitly noted that focus in shockable-rhythm patients should be directed toward early defibrillation. These findings led the authors to call for guideline bodies to adopt nuanced, rhythm-specific recommendations for epinephrine use—recommending it strongly for non-shockable rhythms and only weakly, if at all, for shockable rhythms where defibrillation has failed.
Esmolol: An Evidence-Emerging Alternative for Refractory VF
If epinephrine is to be removed from VF algorithms, a viable pharmacological alternative must be considered. Esmolol—an ultra-short-acting beta-1 selective antagonist—has emerged as a promising candidate for refractory VF and pulseless VT. Hasegawa and colleagues (CHEST, 2023) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis specifically examining esmolol in this context. The theoretical rationale is compelling: high catecholamine states during prolonged cardiac arrest may perpetuate ventricular fibrillation, and esmolol's selective beta-blockade may interrupt this cycle by reducing sympathetically driven arrhythmogenicity, decreasing myocardial oxygen demand, and stabilizing the cardiac membrane without the vasoconstrictive penalties of epinephrine. Preliminary data from small studies and case series suggest that intra-arrest esmolol administration increases successful defibrillation rates and improves ROSC in patients with refractory VF. While this evidence base remains limited relative to epinephrine's decades of use, the trajectory of the data supports further investigation and, in select clinical contexts, consideration of esmolol as an adjunct or replacement strategy.
Pathophysiological Considerations
The differential effect of epinephrine between shockable and non-shockable rhythms is physiologically instructive. In PEA and asystole, the heart lacks organized electrical activity, and restoration of perfusion pressure through vasopressor support may provide the necessary substrate for spontaneous rhythm recovery. In VF, however, the myocardium is electrically active—disorganized, but active—and the primary therapeutic goal is rhythm termination through defibrillation, not vasopressor-mediated perfusion augmentation. Epinephrine's potent alpha-adrenergic effects increase myocardial oxygen demand and provoke catecholamine-mediated arrhythmogenesis. Alpha-1 stimulation activates platelets, promotes microvascular thrombosis, and—critically—impairs cerebral microvascular perfusion even while increasing macroscopic cerebral blood flow. This creates a paradox in which ROSC may be achieved at the cost of meaningful neurological recovery.
Additionally, VF patients who survive to ROSC face the challenge of post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction. Beta-adrenergic stimulation from exogenous epinephrine worsens this dysfunction by increasing heart rate, dysrhythmia burden, and oxygen demand in a myocardium that is already ischemic. These post-ROSC effects may partially explain why epinephrine survivors in clinical trials demonstrate higher rates of poor neurological outcome—ROSC is achieved, but the underlying physiology is rendered less conducive to meaningful recovery.
Discussion: Toward Rhythm-Specific Pharmacology
Taken together, the current evidence strongly supports disaggregating epinephrine's role by cardiac arrest rhythm. The most recent ILCOR guidelines have already begun to reflect this nuance, endorsing a 'strong recommendation' for epinephrine in non-shockable OHCA and only a 'weak recommendation' in shockable OHCA where defibrillation has failed. The data now available—particularly from Fanet et al. (2025) and Fernando et al. (2023)—provide sufficient evidence-based grounds to go further: removing epinephrine from VF-specific algorithms, or at minimum deferring its use significantly while prioritizing defibrillation attempts.
Critics of this position will rightly note that observational studies—even large, propensity-matched ones—cannot establish causation with the certainty of randomized trials. The ongoing EpiDOSE RCT (NCT03826524), which is investigating lower cumulative epinephrine doses in shockable-rhythm patients, may offer important clarity. Nonetheless, clinical equipoise is now sufficiently established that continued universal epinephrine administration in VF arrests—in the face of growing evidence of harm—reflects protocol inertia rather than evidence-based medicine.
A VF-specific algorithm revision might reasonably include prioritization of early, high-quality CPR and rapid defibrillation; consideration of antiarrhythmic agents (amiodarone, lidocaine) per current protocols; deferral of epinephrine beyond the first 3–5 defibrillation cycles; and investigation of esmolol as an adjunct in refractory cases where catecholamine-mediated arrhythmogenesis may be driving treatment failure. Extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) for select refractory VF patients represents a complementary strategy that, where available, offers a time-sensitive pathway to mechanical circulatory support.
Conclusion
Ventricular fibrillation represents cardiac arrest at its most treatable, and yet epinephrine, the most consistently administered pharmacological intervention in modern resuscitation, appears to do little to improve and may substantially worsen outcomes in this population. The convergent findings from Fanet et al. (2025), Fernando et al. (2023), and the PARAMEDIC-2 trial compel the resuscitation science community to reconsider an algorithm that has remained largely unchanged since the era of Lown and Bernoulli. Removing or fundamentally deferring epinephrine in VF-specific protocols is not a radical position, it is the evidence-based one.
The burden of proof should now rest with those who advocate for its continued routine use, not with those who question it.
References
- Fanet L, Javaudin F, Dumas F, et al. Association of epinephrine and outcome in cardiac arrest with refractory shockable rhythm: a population-based, propensity-score matched analysis. Crit Care. 2025;29(1):252. doi: 10.1186/s13054-025-05417-4. PMID: 40537836.
- Fernando S, Mathew R, Sadeghirad B, et al. Epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. CHEST. 2023;164(2):381–393. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.01.033.
- Hasegawa D, Sharma A, Im Lee Y. A systematic review and meta-analysis of esmolol for refractory ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. CHEST. 2023;164:A1568.
- Kelson K, deSouza IS. Epinephrine for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;26(2):256–258. doi: 10.1111/acem.13543.
- Perkins GD, Ji C, Deakin CD, et al.; PARAMEDIC2 Collaborators. A randomized trial of epinephrine in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):711–721. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806842.
- Raymond K, Wheeler E, Shank M. Traumatic refractory ventricular fibrillation successfully treated with intra-arrest esmolol. Case Rep Acute Med. 2021;4(3):80–84. doi: 10.1159/000518850.
- Soar J, Berg KM. Early epinephrine administration for cardiac arrest. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2120725. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20725.