Background: Post-resuscitation shock is the main cause of early death in post-cardiac arrest patients. To date, no randomized trial compares the efficacy between norepinephrine and epinephrine in post-resuscitation shock patients.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of the study protocol, and explore potential differences in efficacy and adverse events between norepinephrine and epinephrine in post-resuscitation shock patients.

Methods: This single-center, parallel-group, open-label, feasibility randomized controlled trial included adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients who had post-resuscitation shock within one hour after successful resuscitation. Patients were randomized to receive norepinephrine or epinephrine in a 1:1 ratio. Feasibility outcomes were reported descriptively and narratively. Exploratory analyses were performed to compare the efficacy and adverse events.

Results: A total of 40 patients were equally allocated. Most feasibility goals were achieved. All patients received the allocated intervention with no withdrawals. Ten (50%) patients in the norepinephrine group and 15 (75%) patients in the epinephrine group achieved the target blood pressure by the protocol with a median time of 42 and 39 min, respectively. However, the protocol deviated in 10 (25%) patients and the recruitment rate did not reach the acceptable threshold. The vasopressor dose to achieve the target blood pressure was significantly lower in the norepinephrine group. No significant differences in mortality rates and adverse outcomes were observed in the exploratory analyses.

Conclusion: It is feasible to conduct the definitive trial comparing early post-resuscitation outcomes in patients receiving NE versus EPI for post-resuscitation shock. Some protocol modifications are necessary.