Dataset Information

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with shockable rhythms: a retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms, including ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia, is associated with better prognosis and neurological outcome than OHCA due to other rhythms. Antiarrhythmic drugs, including lidocaine and amiodarone, are often used for defibrillation. This study aimed to compare the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone on the prognosis and neurological outcome of patients with OHCA due to shockable rhythms in a real-world setting.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a multicenter OHCA registry of 91 participating hospitals in Japan. We included adult patients with shockable rhythms, such as ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia, who were administered either lidocaine or amiodarone. The primary outcome was 30-day survival, and the secondary outcome was a good neurological outcome at 30 days. We compared the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for patients with OHCA due to shockable rhythms for these outcomes using logistic regression analysis after propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

Of the 51,199 patients registered in the OHCA registry, 1970 patients were analyzed. In total, 105 patients (5.3%) were administered lidocaine, and 1865 (94.7%) were administered amiodarone. After performing PSM with amiodarone used as the reference, the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of lidocaine use for 30-day survival and 30-day good neurological outcome were 1.44 (0.58-3.61) and 1.77 (0.59-5.29), respectively.

Conclusion

The use of lidocaine and amiodarone for patients with OHCA due to shockable rhythms within a real-world setting showed no significant differences in short-term mortality or neurological outcome. There is no evidence that either amiodarone or lidocaine is superior in treatment; thus, either or both drugs could be administered.

SUBMITTER: Kishihara Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9636706 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with shockable rhythms: a retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry.

Kishihara Yuki Y Kashiura Masahiro M Amagasa Shunsuke S Fukushima Fumihito F Yasuda Hideto H Moriya Takashi T

BMC cardiovascular disorders 20221105 1

<h4>Background</h4>Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms, including ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia, is associated with better prognosis and neurological outcome than OHCA due to other rhythms. Antiarrhythmic drugs, including lidocaine and amiodarone, are often used for defibrillation. This study aimed to compare the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone on the prognosis and neurological outcome of patients with OHCA due to shockable rhythms in ...[more]

PMID: 36335307

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) commonly presents with nonshockable rhythms (asystole and pulseless electric activity). It is unknown whether antiarrhythmic drugs are safe and effective when nonshockable rhythms evolve to shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia [VF/VT]) during resuscitation. METHODS:Adults with nontraumatic OHCA, vascular access, and VF/VT anytime after ?1 shock(s) were prospectively randomized, double-blind, to receive amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo by paramedics. Patients presenting with initial shock-refractory VF/VT were previously reported. The current study was a prespecified analysis in a separate cohort that initially presented with nonshockable OHCA and was randomized on subsequently developing shock-refractory VF/VT. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included discharge functional status and adverse drug-related effects. RESULTS:Of 37?889 patients with OHCA, 3026 with initial VF/VT and 1063 with initial nonshockable-turned-shockable rhythms were treatment-eligible, were randomized, and received their assigned drug. Baseline characteristics among patients with nonshockable-turned-shockable rhythms were balanced across treatment arms, except that recipients of a placebo included fewer men and were less likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Active-drug recipients in this cohort required fewer shocks, supplemental doses of their assigned drug, and ancillary antiarrhythmic drugs than recipients of a placebo (P<0.05). In all, 16 (4.1%) amiodarone, 11 (3.1%) lidocaine, and 6 (1.9%) placebo-treated patients survived to hospital discharge (P=0.24). No significant interaction between treatment assignment and discharge survival occurred with the initiating OHCA rhythm (asystole, pulseless electric activity, or VF/VT). Survival in each of these categories was consistently higher with active drugs, although the trends were not statistically significant. Adjusted absolute differences (95% confidence interval) in survival from nonshockable-turned-shockable arrhythmias with amiodarone versus placebo were 2.3% (-0.3, 4.8), P=0.08, and for lidocaine versus placebo 1.2% (-1.1, 3.6), P=0.30. More than 50% of these survivors were functionally independent or required minimal assistance. Drug-related adverse effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS:Outcome from nonshockable-turned-shockable OHCA is poor but not invariably fatal. Although not statistically significant, point estimates for survival were greater after amiodarone or lidocaine than placebo, without increased risk of adverse effects or disability and consistent with previously observed favorable trends from treatment of initial shock-refractory VF/VT with these drugs. Together the findings may signal a clinical benefit that invites further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01401647.

Project description:BackgroundSerum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) is the only recommended biomarker for multimodal prognostication in postcardiac arrest patients, but low sensitivity of absolute NSE threshold limits its utility. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic performance of serum NSE for poor neurologic outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors based on their initial rhythm and to determine the NSE cutoff values with false positive rate (FPR) < 1% for each group.MethodsThis study included OHCA survivors who received targeted temperature management (TTM) and had serum NSE levels measured at 48 h after return of spontaneous circulation in the Korean Hypothermia Network, a prospective multicenter registry from 22 university-affiliated teaching hospitals in South Korea between October 2015 and December 2018. The primary outcome was poor outcome at 6 month, defined as a cerebral performance category of 3-5.ResultsOf 623 patients who underwent TTM with NSE measured 48 h after the return of spontaneous circulation, 245 had an initial shockable rhythm. Median NSE level was significantly higher in the non-shockable group than in the shockable group (104.6 [40.6-228.4] vs. 25.9 [16.7-53.4] ng/mL, P < 0.001). Prognostic performance of NSE assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict poor outcome was significantly higher in the non-shockable group than in the shockable group (0.92 vs 0.86). NSE cutoff values with an FPR < 1% in the non-shockable and shockable groups were 69.3 (sensitivity of 42.1%) and 102.7 ng/mL (sensitivity of 76%), respectively.ConclusionNSE prognostic performance and its cutoff values with FPR < 1% for predicting poor outcome in OHCA survivors who underwent TTM differed between shockable and non-shockable rhythms, suggesting postcardiac arrest survivor heterogeneity. Trial registration KORHN-PRO, NCT02827422. Registered 11 September 2016-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02827422.

Project description:BackgroundAntiarrhythmic drugs have not proven to significantly improve overall survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. How this might be influenced by the route of drug administration is not known.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we compared the differences in survival to hospital discharge in adults with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomly assigned by emergency medical services personnel to an antiarrhythmic drug versus placebo in the ALPS trial (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study), when stratified by the intravenous versus intraosseous route of administration.ResultsOf 3019 randomly assigned patients with a known vascular access site, 2358 received ALPS drugs intravenously and 661 patients by the intraosseous route. Intraosseous and intravenous groups differed in sex, time-to-emergency medical services arrival, and some cardiopulmonary resuscitation characteristics, but were similar in others, including time-to-intravenous/intrasosseous drug receipt. Overall hospital discharge survival was 23%. In comparison with placebo, discharge survival was significantly higher in recipients of intravenous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.50]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]) and intravenous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]); but not in recipients of intraosseous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.66-1.32]) or intraosseous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.74-1.44]). Survival to hospital admission also increased significantly when drugs were given intravenously but not intraosseously, and favored improved neurological outcome at discharge. There were no outcome differences between intravenous and intraosseous placebo, indicating that the access route itself did not demarcate patients with poor prognosis. The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug interactions, which were not statistically significant.ConclusionsWe found no significant effect modification by drug administration route for amiodarone or lidocaine in comparison with placebo during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, point estimates for the effects of both drugs in comparison with placebo were significantly greater for the intravenous than for the intraosseous route across virtually all outcomes and beneficial only for the intravenous route. Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these findings signal the potential importance of the drug administration route during resuscitation that merits further investigation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if earlier administration of epinephrine (adrenaline) in patients with non-shockable cardiac arrest rhythms is associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and neurologically intact survival.DesignPost hoc analysis of prospectively collected data in a large multicenter registry of in-hospital cardiac arrests (Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation).SettingWe utilized the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation database (formerly National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, NRCPR). The database is sponsored by the American Heart Association (AHA) and contains prospective data from 570 American hospitals collected from 1 January 2000 to 19 November 2009.Participants119,978 adults from 570 hospitals who had a cardiac arrest in hospital with asystole (55%) or pulseless electrical activity (45%) as the initial rhythm. Of these, 83,490 arrests were excluded because they took place in the emergency department, intensive care unit, or surgical or other specialty unit, 10,775 patients were excluded because of missing or incomplete data, 524 patients were excluded because they had a repeat cardiac arrest, and 85 patients were excluded as they received vasopressin before the first dose of epinephrine. The main study population therefore comprised 25,095 patients. The mean age was 72, and 57% were men.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included sustained return of spontaneous circulation, 24 hour survival, and survival with favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge.Results25,095 adults had in-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms. Median time to administration of the first dose of epinephrine was 3 minutes (interquartile range 1-5 minutes). There was a stepwise decrease in survival with increasing interval of time to epinephrine (analyzed by three minute intervals): adjusted odds ratio 1.0 for 1-3 minutes (reference group); 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.055) for 4-6 minutes; 0.74 (0.63 to 0.88; P<0.001) for 7-9 minutes; and 0.63 (0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001) for >9 minutes. A similar stepwise effect was observed across all outcome variables.ConclusionsIn patients with non-shockable cardiac arrest in hospital, earlier administration of epinephrine is associated with a higher probability of return of spontaneous circulation, survival in hospital, and neurologically intact survival.

Project description:BackgroundEpinephrine increases the chances of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), especially when the initial rhythm is non-shockable. However, this drug could also worsen the post-resuscitation syndrome (PRS). We assessed the association between epinephrine use during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and subsequent intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in patients with ROSC after non-shockable OHCA.MethodsWe used data prospectively collected in the Sudden Death Expertise Center (SDEC) registry (capturing OHCA data located in the Greater Paris area, France) between May 2011 and December 2021. All adults with ROSC after medical, cardiac and non-cardiac causes, non-shockable OHCA admitted to an ICU were included. The mode of death in the ICU was categorized as cardiocirculatory, neurological, or other.ResultsOf the 2,792 patients analyzed, there were 242 (8.7%) survivors at hospital discharge, 1,004 (35.9%) deaths from cardiocirculatory causes, 1,233 (44.2%) deaths from neurological causes, and 313 (11.2%) deaths from other etiologies. The cardiocirculatory death group received more epinephrine (4.6 ± 3.8 mg versus 1.7 ± 2.8 mg, 3.2 ± 2.6 mg, and 3.5 ± 3.6 mg for survivors, neurological deaths, and other deaths, respectively; p < 0.001). The proportion of cardiocirculatory death increased linearly (R2 = 0.92, p < 0.001) with cumulative epinephrine doses during CPR (17.7% in subjects who did not receive epinephrine and 62.5% in those who received > 10 mg). In multivariable analysis, a cumulative dose of epinephrine was strongly associated with cardiocirculatory death (adjusted odds ratio of 3.45, 95% CI [2.01-5.92] for 1 mg of epinephrine; 12.28, 95% CI [7.52-20.06] for 2-5 mg; and 23.71, 95% CI [11.02-50.97] for > 5 mg; reference 0 mg; population reference: alive at hospital discharge), even after adjustment on duration of resuscitation. The other modes of death (neurological and other causes) were also associated with epinephrine use, but to a lesser extent.ConclusionsIn non-shockable OHCA with ROSC, the dose of epinephrine used during CPR is strongly associated with early cardiocirculatory death. Further clinical studies aimed at limiting the dose of epinephrine during CPR seem warranted. Moreover, strategies for the prevention and management of PRS should take this dose of epinephrine into consideration for future trials.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with shockable rhythms: a retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with shockable rhythms: a retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets