Double Defibrillation for Refractory In- and Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Defibrillation strategies for refractory ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) and vector-change defibrillation (VCD) have been suggested to enhance clinical outcomes for patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) refractory of standard defibrillation (SD). Therefore, this network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of DSED, VCD, and SD for refractory VF.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through November 15th, 2022. R software netmeta and netrank package (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using odds ratio (OR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022378533.

RESULTS

We included seven studies with a total of 1632 participants. DSED was similar to SD in survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.14 with 95% CI [0.55, 2.83]), favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale ≤2 or cerebral performance category ≤2) (OR: 1.35 with 95% CI [0.46, 3.99]), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.81 with 95% CI [0.43; 1.5]). In addition, VCD was similar to SD in survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.12 with 95% CI [0.27, 4.57]), favorable neurological outcome (OR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.18, 5.75]), and ROSC (OR: 0.88 with 95% CI [0.24; 3.15]).

CONCLUSION

Double sequential external defibrillation and VCD were not associated with enhanced outcomes in patients with refractory VF out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, compared to SD. However, the current evidence is still inconclusive, warranting further large-scale RCTs.

Double external defibrillation for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest: A step towards standardization

Double (or dual) external defibrillation (DED) has increasingly been used in the last few years by a number of emergency medical services (EMS) as a last resort to terminate ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia in adult patients who remain refractory to standard defibrillation. However, no randomized controlled trials comparing DED with standard defibrillation focusing on patient-oriented outcomes as the primary objective have been published to date. Selection criteria, procedure techniques, and protocol are not clearly defined and vary across observational studies. The terms and/or nomenclature used to describe DED are confusing and vary throughout the literature. Despite increased use of DED, many questions remain as to which patients will derive the most benefit from DED, when to implement DED, and the optimal form of delivering DED. The present paper provides a brief overview of the background, procedure techniques, pad placement, and factors affecting how DED is delivered. A further objective of this paper is to offer a proposal for a uniform nomenclature and a standardized protocol in the form of a flowchart for EMS agencies to guide further clinical trials and best practices. This paper should not only help give background on novel definitions and clarify nomenclature for this practice, but more importantly should help institutions lay the groundwork for performing EMS-based large trials to further investigate the effectiveness of DED.

A review of pre-hospital case series among those with time to double external defibrillation and neurologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Double external defibrillation (DED) has been used as a final effort to terminate refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardiac (rVF/pVT). Data surrounding time to DED and patient-centered outcomes remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study summarizes patient-level data from case-series of observed survival and neurologic outcomes following the use of DED for rVF/pVT among those with data regarding time to DED.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE (OVID interface), and Scopus from January 1, 2000, through January 5, 2020. The literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two investigators independently conducted the literature search, study selection, and data extraction.

RESULTS

Our database search identified 3139 records. Of these, 1660 studies were eliminated following inspection of the titles and 22 studies underwent full-text screening, three included in the final analysis, describing a total of 29 cases. All studies were considered to have critical risk of bias. For the critical outcomes of survival to discharge and neurologically intact survival we identified that patients who received DED before 30 min from collapse compared to those who received DED after 30 min had better survival to discharge (33.3% [5/15] vs. 7.1% [1/14]) and neurologically intact survival (20.0% [3/15] vs. 7.1% [1/14]). Overall, 20.6% of patients survived to discharge, 13.8% with neurologically intact survival. It is noteworthy that the patients who were discharged with a CPC of 1 received two, four, five, and three standard shocks before receiving DED, and the time between their onset of cardiac arrest to their first DED attempt was recorded to be 15, 26, 26, and 32 min, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We would like to indicate that there is not enough evidence to suggest that early use of pre-hospital DED is associated with improved outcomes. Further research should strive to address these issues before conclusions can be drawn.