Home Cardiac (non-arrest) PANDA trial: noradrenaline vs adrenaline in shock
Cardiac (non-arrest)
PANDA trial: noradrenaline vs adrenaline in shock
Design and rationale of a multicenter paramedic randomized trial of noradrenaline versus adrenaline in the initial management of patients with cardiogenic shock—The PANDA trial
American Heart Journal · Added 23 May 2026
This multicenter RCT protocol tests whether noradrenaline improves outcomes compared with adrenaline for paramedic management of cardiogenic shock, with the PANDA trial aiming to settle the debate on optimal vasopressor choice in the prehospital setting.
- Study type
- RCT
- Design
- Protocol for prehospital multicentre open-label RCT
- Participants
- Planned 1,155 patients with suspected cardiogenic shock (450 recruited to date)
- Main finding
- Trial randomises paramedic-administered noradrenaline vs adrenaline to target SBP 100 mmHg; primary outcome 28-day all-cause mortality; results not yet available
- Caveat
- Protocol only — no outcome data yet
- Bottom line
- Context only
Learning goal
Weigh the evidence for noradrenaline versus adrenaline when supporting blood pressure in prehospital cardiogenic shock.
More
- Topic: Cardiac (non-arrest)
- Daily scan: 23 May 2026
Related papers on Cardiac (non-arrest)
-
Only a third get PHT within 30 min
This Australian study identifies factors affecting timely prehospital thrombolysis delivery in Victoria's pharmacoinvasive STEMI network.
-
FLAG score predicts circulatory support need in shock
The FLAG risk score is a simple, registry-based model to predict MCS treatment during hospital stay in a prehospital setting.
-
SCARE score validates for chest pain triage
They prospectively validated the SCARE score for predicting acute myocardial infarction during telephone triage across multiple French emergency communication centers, finding good discrimination and calibration but noting limitations in real-world implementation.
-
EMS protocols rarely guide pads in STEMI
They reviewed whether EMS protocols adequately address defibrillator pad placement in prehospital STEMI care, and found significant variability and gaps that may compromise monitoring and pacing capability during transport.