Bretylium tosylate as initial treatment for cardiopulmonary arrest: randomized comparison with placebo

Bretylium, a Class III Antiarrhythmic, Returns to the Market

Bretylium, with an extensive pharmacologic and medicinal history, was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1986 for "short-term prevention and treatment of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and ventricular tachycardia (VT) unresponsive to adequate doses of a first-line antiarrhythmic agent, such as lidocaine." The NDA sponsor withdrew bretylium from the market in 2011, largely due to unavailability of raw materials required for its production; prior to this, bretylium was removed from the 2000 ACLS Guidelines algorithm for VF/pulseless VT given the challenges obtaining raw materials for drug manufacture. Recently, bretylium has been reintroduced into the US market by a generic pharmaceutical company with the same indications as before. This article provides a history of the salient trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of bretylium and looks to the future as bretylium finds its place in the modern day management of ventricular arrhythmia.

What is New in Pharmacologic Therapy for Cardiac Resuscitation?

Antiarrhythmic therapy can be a critical component of cardiac resuscitation. Therapies in this area have seen little advance in the last decade. Bretylium, a very old drug, has been reintroduced for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) therapy. There are still important questions to be addressed with bretylium: when to administer (first- or second-line) and at which dose. These questions and the development of newer agents will be areas of future research.

2018 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Summary

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the second annual summary of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations that includes the most recent cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. This summary addresses the role of antiarrhythmic drugs in adults and children and includes the Advanced Life Support Task Force and Pediatric Task Force consensus statements, which summarize the most recent published evidence and an assessment of the quality of the evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The statements include consensus treatment recommendations approved by members of the relevant task forces. Insights into the deliberations of each task force are provided in the Values and Preferences and Task Force Insights sections. Finally, the task force members have listed the top knowledge gaps for further research.

Effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for shockable cardiac arrest: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to provide up-to-date evidence on effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for shockable cardiac arrest to help inform the 2018 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations.

METHODS

A search was conducted in electronic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to August 15, 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 9371 citations reviewed, a total of 14 RCTs and 17 observational studies met our inclusion criteria for adult population and only 1 observational study for pediatric population. Based on RCT level evidence for adult population, none of the anti-arrhythmic drugs showed any difference in effect compared with placebo, or with other anti-arrhythmic drugs for the critical outcomes of survival to hospital discharge and discharge with good neurological function. For the outcome of return of spontaneous circulation, the results showed a significant increase for lidocaine compared with placebo (RR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The high level evidence supporting the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during CPR for shockable cardiac arrest is limited and showed no benefit for critical outcomes of survival at hospital discharge, survival with favorable neurological function and long-term survival. Future high quality research is needed to confirm these findings and also to evaluate the role of administering antiarrhythmic drugs in children with shockable cardiac arrest, and in adults immediately after ROSC.

Antiarrhythmia drugs for cardiac arrest: a systemic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Antiarrhythmia agents have been used in the treatment of cardiac arrest, and we aimed to review the relevant clinical controlled trials to assess the effects of antiarrhythmics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHODS

We searched databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Clinical controlled trials that addressed the effects of antiarrhythmics (including amiodarone, lidocaine, magnesium, and other new potassium-channel blockers) on the outcomes of cardiac arrest were included. Data were collected independently by two authors. The risk ratio of each outcome was collected, and meta-analysis was used for data synthesis if appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ² test and the I² test.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials and seven observational trials were identified. Amiodarone (relative risk (RR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54 to 1.24), lidocaine (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.93 to 5.52), magnesium (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.24) and nifekalant were not shown to improve the survival to hospital discharge compared with placebo, but amiodarone, lidocaine, and nifekalant were shown to be beneficial to initial resuscitation, assessed by the rate of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital admission, with amiodarone being superior to lidocaine (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.57 to 2.86) and nifekalant (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.31). Bretylium and sotalol were not shown to be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that when administered during resuscitation, antiarrhythmia agents might not improve the survival to hospital discharge, but they might be beneficial to initial resuscitation. This is consistent with the AHA 2010 guidelines for resuscitation and cardiovascular emergency, but more studies with good methodologic quality and large numbers of patients are still needed to make further assessment.

The use of antiarrhythmic drugs for adult cardiac arrest: a systematic review

AIMS

In adult cardiac arrest, antiarrhythmic drugs are frequently utilized in acute management and legions of medical providers have memorized the dosage and timing of administration. However, data supporting their use is limited and is the focus of this comprehensive review.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports.

RESULTS

Of 185 articles found, only 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these, 9 were randomised controlled trials. Nearly all trials solely evaluated Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) and Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), and excluded Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA) and asystole. In VT/VF patients, amiodarone improved survival to hospital admission, but not to hospital discharge when compared to lidocaine in two randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone may be considered for those who have refractory VT/VF, defined as VT/VF not terminated by defibrillation, or VT/VF recurrence in out of hospital cardiac arrest or in-hospital cardiac arrest. There is inadequate evidence to support or refute the use of lidocaine and other antiarrythmic agents in the same settings.

Strategies for reversing shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation is defined as ventricular fibrillation persisting after three defibrillation attempts. In approximately 10 to 25% of all cardiac arrests, shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation develops, and 87 to 98% of these patients die.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the treatment of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation, defibrillation using biphasic waveforms is considered as an intervention of choice. Intravenous amiodarone is also acceptable, safe, and useful, based on evidence from two randomized clinical trials. Intravenous vasopressin is acceptable and probably safe and useful, but the evidence supporting this recommendation is coming from a small, randomized clinical trial. Procainamide is acceptable but not recommended. In the presence of acute myocardial infarction and recurrent ventricular fibrillation, if all other therapies fail, beta-blockers can be considered. Magnesium, lidocaine, and bretylium are not recommended in the treatment of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation.

SUMMARY

Biphasic defibrillation and intravenous amiodarone are useful in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation.

Advanced cardiac life support antiarrhythmic drugs

As exemplified in this discussion of ACLS antiarrhythmic drugs, the evidence-based evaluation process has created a high standard for the acceptance and ranking of therapies for cardiac arrest. This process also has identified critical areas needing further investigation, fostered a healthy sense of discomfort with the adequacy of our present interventions for cardiac arrest, and hopefully will continue to spur the science while sifting the dogma out of CPR.

Meta-analysis of the Risk of Torsades de Pointes in patients treated with intravenous racemic sotalol

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous (IV) racemic sotalol is useful for the treatment of multiple tachydysrhythmias. The authors hypothesized that the risk of torsades de pointes (TdP) in patients treated with a single IV infusion of sotalol is lower than the 2-4% risk associated with chronic oral sotalol therapy.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search under the subject heading "sotalol" was made of all publications involving humans written in English or German from 1966 to October 1, 2000. A meta-analysis of all original reports including patients who were given a single infusion of at least 1.5 mg/kg or 100 mg of IV sotalol over 30 minutes or less was performed. Potential variables predictive of TdP were assessed. The primary outcome was the observation of TdP associated with IV sotalol infusion. Secondary measurements included hypotension, bradycardia, and worsening of congestive heart failure. All excluded studies and case reports were also examined for evidence of TdP associated with IV sotalol treatment.

RESULTS

The search included 1,005 publications. There were 37 reports in which 962 patients received IV sotalol and met the inclusion criteria. There was one report of self-terminating TdP lasting 10 seconds among the 962 patients included in the study. There was no report of TdP associated with only IV racemic sotalol administration in any of the excluded studies. If it is assumed that the risk of TdP is homogeneous in the population of patients treated with IV sotalol, then based on the 962 included patients, the rate of TdP is 0.1% (95% CI = 0.003% to 0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of TdP in patients treated with a single infusion of IV sotalol is low compared with that in patients given chronic oral sotalol therapy.

Pharmacotherapeutic Advances in Cardiac Resuscitation: A Review of the Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) 2000 Guidelines and Their Impact on Pharmacy Practice

The treatment of sudden cardiac death is a challenging area of pharmacotherapy. Despite decades of medication use, outcomes from the treatment of cardiac arrest remain poor. Recent advances in the treatment of cardiac arrest have been incorporated into the American Heart Association’s Advanced Cardiac Life Support 2000 guidelines. A summary and review of these guidelines are presented. Included in the changes to the cardiac arrest treatment guidelines are new medications (amiodarone and vasopressin), new approaches to using medications and the evidence to support these changes. The implications of instituting these new guidelines and strategies for the implementation of the new paradigm are discussed.

Intravenous antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the resuscitation from refractory ventricular arrhythmias

Prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation significantly improve the likelihood of successful resuscitation from cardiac arrest and are the key components in the American Heart Association's "chain of survival." Although representing current clinical practice in the United States, there is limited evidence supporting the benefit of acute administration of such antiarrhythmic medications as lidocaine, bretylium, magnesium, and procainamide to a victim of cardiac arrest. There has been only 1 published case-controlled clinical trial in which shock-refractory victims of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation were stratified into those who received lidocaine and those who did not. In this trial, no significant differences were observed between treatment groups in the return of an organized rhythm, admission to the hospital, or survival to hospital discharge. In the recently published ARREST trial, a significant improvement in admission alive to the hospital was observed in recipients of intravenous amiodarone, compared with placebo (44% vs 34%, respectively, p = 0.03). With the possible exception of intravenous amiodarone, available evidence of definitive benefit from antiarrhythmic drugs in cardiac arrest is inconclusive. Due to regulatory issues, clinical trials in cardiac arrest are extremely difficult to design and perform.

Amiodarone for resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Whether antiarrhythmic drugs improve the rate of successful resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has not been determined in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intravenous amiodarone in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients who had cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation (or pulseless ventricular tachycardia) and who had not been resuscitated after receiving three or more precordial shocks were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg of intravenous amiodarone (246 patients) or placebo (258 patients).

RESULTS

The treatment groups had similar clinical profiles. There was no significant difference between the amiodarone and placebo groups in the duration of the resuscitation attempt (42+/-16.4 and 43+/-16.3 minutes, respectively), the number of shocks delivered (4+/-3 and 6+/-5), or the proportion of patients who required additional antiarrhythmic drugs after the administration of the study drug (66 percent and 73 percent). More patients in the amiodarone group than in the placebo group had hypotension (59 percent vs. 48 percent, P=0.04) or bradycardia (41 percent vs. 25 percent, P=0.004) after receiving the study drug. Recipients of amiodarone were more likely to survive to be admitted to the hospital (44 percent, vs. 34 percent of the placebo group; P=0.03). The benefit of amiodarone was consistent among all subgroups and at all times of drug administration. The adjusted odds ratio for survival to admission to the hospital in the amiodarone group as compared with the placebo group was 1.6 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.4; P=0.02). The trial did not have sufficient statistical power to detect differences in survival to hospital discharge, which differed only slightly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to refractory ventricular arrhythmias, treatment with amiodarone resulted in a higher rate of survival to hospital admission. Whether this benefit extends to survival to discharge from the hospital merits further investigation.

Do advanced cardiac life support drugs increase resuscitation rates from in-hospital cardiac arrest? The OTAC Study Group

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The benefit of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) medications during cardiac resuscitation is uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of these medications increased resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cardiac arrest in 1 of 5 academic hospitals was studied. Patient and arrest factors related to resuscitation outcome were recorded. We determined the association of the administration of ACLS drugs (epinephrine, atropine, bicarbonate, calcium, lidocaine, and bretylium) with survival at 1 hour after resuscitation.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seventy-three patients underwent cardiac resuscitation, with 269 (34. 8%) surviving for 1 hour. Use of epinephrine, atropine, bicarbonate, calcium, and lidocaine was associated with a decreased chance of successful resuscitation (P <.001 for all except lidocaine, P <.01). While controlling for significant patient factors (age, gender, and previous cardiac or respiratory disease) and arrest factors (initial cardiac rhythm, and cause of arrest), multivariate logistic regression demonstrated a significant association between unsuccessful resuscitation and the use of epinephrine (odds ratio . 08 [95% confidence interval .04-.14]), atropine (.24 [.17-.35]), bicarbonate (.31 [.21-.44]), calcium (.32 [.18-.55]), and lidocaine (.48 [.33-.71]). Drug effects did not improve when patients were grouped by their initial cardiac rhythm. Cox proportional hazards models that controlled for significant confounders demonstrated that survivors were significantly less likely to receive epinephrine (P <. 001) or atropine (P <.001) throughout the arrest.

CONCLUSION

We found no association between standard ACLS medications and improved resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether other therapies can improve resuscitation from cardiac arrest when compared with the presently used ACLS drugs.

Intravenous amiodarone

Intravenous amiodarone was approved in 1995 for the treatment of malignant and resistant ventricular arrhythmia. Although it is an "old drug," much has been learned recently about this complex drug and its application in a variety of cardiac arrhythmias. The objectives of this review were to summarize what is known about intravenous amiodarone, including its pharmacologic and electrophysiologic effects, to review its efficacy for the treatment of patients with highly malignant ventricular arrhythmia and to provide specific information about its clinical use for this and other indications. The studies that were reviewed were selected on the basis of time published (from 1983 to 1995) and the completeness of information provided regarding patient clinical characteristics, drug dosing and methods of evaluation, efficacy analyses, long-term follow-up and complications. The full data from the three controlled trials that formed the basis of the drug's approval are contained in published reports that were also extensively reviewed. Intravenous amiodarone has demonstrable efficacy for the treatment of frequently recurrent destabilizing ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, with suppression rates of 63% to 91% in uncontrolled trials. The three pivotal trials confirmed these findings and demonstrated a dose-response relation, with at least comparable efficacy to bretylium, a drug with a similar indication. The safety profile has also been well described; cardiovascular adverse effects are the most frequent, especially hypotension. Intravenous amiodarone is a useful addition to the drugs available for the treatment of patients with very severe ventricular arrhythmia. Its use in patients with other rhythm disorders appears promising, but final recommendations must await development of definitive data from ongoing clinical trials.

Reporting approval by research ethics committees and subjects' consent in human resuscitation research

OBJECTIVE

To determine how frequently reports of research in human cardiopulmonary resuscitation mention approval by a research ethics committee and address subjects' consent.

METHODS

Retrospective review of published reports of interventional research in human cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Reports were retrieved from the MEDLINE database and selected according to pre-established criteria. Data were abstracted independently by the two authors with differences resolved by mutual agreement. Results were analyzed according to whether the research took place in the prehospital setting, the emergency department, or the hospital; whether it was conducted within or outside the United States; whether it received any funding from the US government; its randomization scheme; the year of publication; and whether the journal's instructions required mention of REC approval or subjects' consent.

RESULTS

Reports of 47 studies met our criteria for inclusion. Of these, 24 (51%) mentioned approval by a research ethics committee and 12 (26%) addressed subjects' consent. Significantly more studies reported ethics committee approval or addressed consent during more recent years. Authors were more likely to report consent, REC approval, or both when journal instructions required that REC approval be mentioned.

CONCLUSION

Reports of resuscitation research have not consistently mentioned approval from a research ethics committee or addressed subjects' consent for interventional studies using human subjects. However, they are doing so more frequently in recent years as journal requirements for reporting change. REC approval is now almost always being reported, but subjects' consent is often not addressed. Journal editors and reviewers should ensure that authors adhere to the journal's instructions about reporting ethical conduct of experiments.

Cardiac arrest

This article reviews the critical resuscitations necessary during prehospital and emergency department treatment of cardiac arrest. Standard therapy for cardiac arrest rhythms is presented. Novel pharmacologic agents, types of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and circulatory-assist devices are discussed.

Parenteral antiarrhythmics for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias

The acute management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias often includes the use of parenteral antiarrhythmics. There are a number of agents currently available for this purpose. They are used to suppress inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during programmed electrical stimulation, they terminate spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia, and prevent ventricular fibrillation in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction. Serious adverse reactions include proarrhythmia, hypotension, severe bradyarrhythmias, and precipitation of congestive heart failure. A comparative evaluation of intravenous antiarrhythmics is difficult due to inherent differences in the choice of agents for study, protocol design, patient population, defined endpoint, and serum drug levels. Likewise, the reported adverse reaction rates vary from 0.4% to 75%. To understand the difficulties in clinical decision-making in this problem area, particularly drug selection, we present here a review of pertinent clinical trials evaluating parenteral drug efficacy and adverse effects.

Association of drug therapy with survival in cardiac arrest: limited role of advanced cardiac life support drugs

OBJECTIVE

To generate hypotheses regarding the association of standard Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) drugs with human cardiac arrest survival.

METHODS

This observational cohort study was conducted over a two-year period in the wards, intensive care units, and EDs of two tertiary care hospitals. Included werc adult patients who suffered cardiac arrest either inside or outside the hospital and who required epinephrine according to standard ACLS guidelines. Six standard ACLS drugs (given while CPR was in progress) were assessed for association with survival from resuscitation to one hour and to hospital discharge by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

In the 529 patients studied, initial cardiac rhythm had no impact on the association between drug administration and survival. The time of drug administration (quartile of ACLS period) was associated with resuscitation for atropine (p < 0.05) and lidocaine (p < 0.01). The odds ratios (95% CIs) for successful resuscitation, after multivariate adjustment for potential confounders, were: a respiratory initiating cause, 3.7 (2.1 -6.4); each 5-minute increase in CPR-ACLS interval, 0.5 (0.4-0.7); each 5-minute duration of ACLS. 0.9 (()1.8- 1.0; atropine, 1.2 (1.0-1.3); bretylium. (0.4 (0.1-1.1); calcium 0.8 (0.2-2.4); lidocaine, 0.9 (0.7-1.1); procainamide. 21.0 (5.2-84.0) d sodium bicarbonate 1.2 (1.0-1.6). All other potential confounding variables entered into the model were not significantly associated with resuscitation.

CONCLUSION

Initiating cause of arrest, time to ACLS, and duration of ACLS were important correlates of survival. Other than procainaimide, standard ACLS drugs had relatively little association with survival, but timing of administration may be an important factor. Further research using definitive large randomized controlled trials is warranted to assess the role of drug therapy in improving cardiac arrest survival.

The use of antiarrhythmics in advanced cardiac life support

Antiarrhythmic agents have been used to treat malignant ventricular arrhythmias in the setting of acute myocardial ischemia with proven efficacy for many years. Thus, it has been presumed that these agents would be efficacious for the treatment of cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, hard data supporting this contention are unavailable to date. Furthermore, some of the experimental data in this area are conflicting, especially regarding the relative effects of lidocaine and bretylium. Thus, little definitive can be said based on experimental information. In two randomized patient studies, lidocaine and bretylium performed comparably. Because of the frequent use of lidocaine and thus the familiarity of most health care professionals with its use, it makes educational sense to utilize lidocaine as the antiarrhythmic drug of first choice during the cardiac arrest sequence. Recent data suggesting that amiodarone may be efficacious in patients with recurrent arrhythmias require additional confirmation. Although antiarrhythmic agents have been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant arrhythmias in patients with acute myocardial infarction, their use prophylactically for patients with suspected infarction (advocated in the past) has recently undergone reevaluation. It is now clear that despite a reduction in ventricular fibrillation, overall mortality may be increased. This may be because the prophylactic treatment of patients with suspected infarction includes a large number of patients not at risk for ventricular fibrillation who still may be at risk for drug toxicity. Thus, prophylactic administration of lidocaine to all patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction can no longer be recommended. There are inadequate data upon which to base a recommendation concerning the use of lidocaine in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy. The group most likely to benefit from lidocaine are patients with ST segment elevation who present early after the onset of acute myocardial infarction. The use of lidocaine in this group requires additional study. At present, despite enthusiasm for the prophylactic use of magnesium for the treatment of arrhythmias, data are inadequate to support its routine administration. However, given the importance of magnesium and potassium levels in the genesis of malignant arrhythmias, their levels in plasma should be assessed, and abnormalities should be promptly corrected. The potential uses of antiarrhythmic agents during advanced cardiac life support span a remarkably diverse number of applications. For the purpose of this review, only the use of these agents during CPR and during the early hours of acute or suspected acute myocardial infarction will be considered.

Pharmacologic intervention in prehospital care: a critical appraisal

In more than 15 years of paramedic operation, fewer than 15 prehospital studies have been undertaken on the pharmacologic intervention by paramedics. Many of these studies suffer from inadequate sample size or deficient study design. There is no evidence that any medication given by the prehospital care provider is beneficial or cannot safely be delayed until arrival at hospital. Multicenter trials must be designed and implemented if we are to provide the evidence necessary to evaluate our current practice.

Deleterious effects of bretylium on hemodynamic recovery from ventricular fibrillation

To study the effects of bretylium on the restoration of circulatory function after resuscitation from ventricular fibrillation, closed-chest anesthetized dogs were electrically fibrillated for 1 minute followed by defibrillation (direct-current shock). After one control episode of fibrillation and defibrillation, 16 dogs received a bolus of bretylium (10 mg/kg intravenously). A second episode of fibrillation and defibrillation was induced in eight dogs 3 minutes after bretylium and in eight dogs 4 hours after bretylium. Prior to bretylium, mean arterial blood pressure spontaneously recovered to exceed 200 mm Hg by 2 minutes after defibrillation in all 16 dogs. However, after bretylium, 13 of 16 dogs were in electromechanical dissociation 2 minutes after defibrillation (p less than 0.001). Despite external chest compression, epinephrine, and sodium bicarbonate, a stable blood pressure could not be restored in 6 of 16 dogs. Clofilium, a bretylium analogue lacking sympathetic influences, did not alter the pattern of hemodynamic recovery following defibrillation in five of five dogs. The results suggest that the effects of bretylium on the sympathetic nervous system may profoundly influence the outcome of cardiac resuscitation from fibrillation.

Methods of randomization in controlled clinical trials

In this second article of a series that explores design and analysis issues in controlled clinical trials in emergency medicine, we have discussed the case for randomization, reviewed the methods involved in simple randomization, highlighted some of the practical problems involved with randomization, and presented some modified randomization schemes intended to remedy these problems.

Antifibrillatory drugs: the case for bretylium tosylate

The preferred treatment for ventricular fibrillation (VF) refractory to maximal electrical defibrillation remains controversial, as evidenced by recent changes in the American Heart Association's treatment algorithm. To date there have been no published studies conclusively proving one mode of therapy to be superior to another. There is, however, an abundance of animal and clinical data suggesting that bretylium tosylate (BT) is the drug of choice in this setting. In animal studies BT has been shown to lower the canine defibrillation threshold, to facilitate conversion of hypothermia-induced ventricular fibrillation, and to effect spontaneous defibrillation. In 15 years of clinical use as a drug of last resort, and more recently as a first-line drug, BT has developed an impressive track record. Most of the clinical reports are uncontrolled and/or retrospective, but they share a central theme: BT is effective in the treatment of VF refractory to standard therapy. Several small studies have reported successful conversion of VF to a stable rhythm with BT after failure of standard electrical and pharmacologic therapy. Recent studies suggest that earlier use of BT may be associated with improved outcome. Finally, as in animal studies, spontaneous defibrillation has been reported. It is important to note that no drug currently used in the treatment of countershock-refractory VF has been proven effective. The use of some of these drugs is based on tradition rather than scientific evidence. The bulk of currently available scientific data indicates that BT is superior to other commonly used antiarrhythmics in the treatment of VF resistant to countershock.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A randomized comparison study of bretylium tosylate and lidocaine in resuscitation of patients from out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation in a paramedic system

A prospective, randomized study using either bretylium tosylate (BT) or lidocaine (L) as the first-line antiarrhythmic for patients in refractory ventricular fibrillation was conducted using the Milwaukee County Paramedic System. If the patient did not respond to the initial American Heart Association protocol, BT (10 to 30 mg/kg total) or L (2 to 3 mg/kg total) was given randomly as the first antiarrhythmic. If the patient failed to convert, the alternate antiarrhythmic was given. In the L group, 81% (39/48) of the patients obtained an organized electrical rhythm and 56% (27/48) converted to a rhythm with a pulse. The resuscitation rate (admission to an emergency department with pulse) was 23% (11/48), and the save rate was 10.4% (5/48). In the BT group, 74% (32/43) obtained an organized electrical rhythm, 35% (15/43) were converted, 23% (10/43) were resuscitated, and 5% (2/43) were saved. The only significant difference in outcome was that L converted patients better than did BT (P less than .05). Of the 24 patients known to be on digitalis preparations prior to arrest, 41% (5/12) in the L group were resuscitated and 16% (2/12) were resuscitated in the BT group. Data were analyzed for witnessed arrest outcome and for patients given multiple antiarrhythmics.

Rationale of therapy in the patient with acute myocardial infarction and life-threatening arrhythmias: a focus on bretylium

Experimental evidence suggests a number of pathologic and electrophysiologic mechanisms that may help initiate ventricular arrhythmias accompanying myocardial ischemia and infarction. Early and late phase events are associated with reentry or an enhancement of focal mechanisms, or both. These can initiate ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), or both. The presence of distinct mechanisms that may initiate and maintain life-threatening dysrhythmias early in myocardial ischemia suggest different pharmacologic approaches for their prevention or suppression. Another consideration concerns patients subjected to coronary artery angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy and the development of arrhythmias associated with reperfusion of the once ischemic myocardium. The electrophysiologic mechanisms associated with reperfusion arrhythmias are unknown, and little is known about appropriate therapy for each episode of cardiac dysrhythmia. Ventricular extrasystoles or VT usually precedes VF. These premonitory arrhythmias are poor criteria for the institution of antiarrhythmic drug therapy, because VF develops within 1 to 10 minutes after the appearance of the rhythmic disturbances. Some authorities suggest that all patients with acute myocardial infarction should receive prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy, because warning arrhythmias either do not occur at all or provide insufficient time to intervene pharmacologically. Many of the new class I antiarrhythmic agents effectively reduce the frequency of premature ventricular depolarizations, but lack specific antifibrillatory activity. However, the recent introduction of bretylium into clinical cardiology opens a new approach to preventing life-threatening ventricular dysrhythmias. Along with other members of class III, bretylium exerts different cardiac electrophysiologic effects than do the other 3 classes of drugs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Management of ventricular dysrhythmias in the prehospital and emergency department setting

Each year approximately 1,500,000 people experience acute myocardial infarction. About 40% of them die, half before they reach the hospital. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is a major cause of cardiac arrest, and delay in administering antiarrhythmic agents contributes to the incidence of out-of-hospital deaths. The 3 antiarrhythmic drugs currently used by paramedics for cardiac arrest are bretylium, lidocaine, and procainamide. The early use of bretylium tosylate is stressed in Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols because of the agent's antifibrillatory properties, that is, its ability to increase the VF threshold and to block reentry. Evidence indicates that early, aggressive use of bretylium tosylate as a first-line agent improves the likelihood of successful resuscitation. Preliminary data are presented from an ongoing comparative study of prehospital use of bretylium tosylate and lidocaine for VF. One hundred seventeen cardiac arrests have occurred, 55 of which were associated with VF and are included in the study. Resuscitation was not attempted in 3 of the 55 patients at the request of the family and physician. Of the remaining 52 patients, 17 received bretylium tosylate plus lidocaine, 12 lidocaine alone, and 7 only bretylium tosylate. There were 16 patients who did not receive medications. According to the study protocol, the choice of antiarrhythmic agents was determined by the paramedic shift during which arrest occurred. Of the 52 patients treated, 16 (30%) survived. It is too soon to draw any conclusions.

Treatment of prehospital refractory ventricular fibrillation with bretylium tosylate

Among 218 patients treated for prehospital arrest during an eight-month baseline period prior to addition of bretylium tosylate to the paramedic protocol in Columbus, 16 (7.3%) were seen with refractory ventricular fibrillation (RVF). These patients failed to respond to multiple countershocks, lidocaine, bicarbonate and epinephrine, and either were transported in arrest during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)(14) or were pronounced dead at the scene (2). A single patient was eventually resuscitated in and discharged from the hospital. During the subsequent 16 1/2-month experience with bretylium used only for prehospital RVF, 421 patients with prehospital arrest were seen, 35 of whom (8.3%) had RVF. All but five patients were defibrillated successfully, and 14 (40%) were converted to a rhythm sufficient to obviate CPR during transportation. Eleven patients (31%) survived to be admitted to the hospital, and eight of 35 (23% vs 1/16 or 6.2% above, P less than .05) were discharged and remained well three to 17 months later. Bretylium tosylate may provide life-saving therapy for refractory prehospital ventricular fibrillation so that survival from an almost uniformly fatal condition is improved. While patients with persistent arrest generally should be transported to the hospital, such patients should not be subjected to the difficulties of CPR in transit unless they are first given bretylium if RVF is present.

Endotracheal bretylium tosylate in a canine model

This study was conducted to determine whether bretylium tosylate (BT) is effectively and safely absorbed through the endotracheal route in the canine model. Eleven adult mongrel dogs were anesthetized with pentobarbital, were orally intubated, and had continuous blood pressure and electrocardiographic monitoring. Four dogs received 5 mg/kg BT, three dogs received 10 mg/kg BT, two dogs received 20 mg/kg BT, and two control dogs were given volumes of normal saline equal to those given the 5- and 10-mg/kg groups. Each dog received the same dose of BT both endotracheally and intravenously, but in a random order and on different dates. Following each drug administration arterial blood was drawn at various intervals over two hours and sent for immediate gas analysis; serum samples were frozen for future determination of BT levels. Regardless of the amounts delivered, the peak levels of BT in the arterial blood following administration by the endotracheal route were consistently low (4.13 micrograms/mL to 14.00 micrograms/mL) when compared to those levels following intravenously administered BT (120 micrograms/mL to 268 micrograms/mL) (all P less than .002 for the 5- and 10-mg/kg groups). No depot effect was observed during a two-hour period. The arterial blood gases did not change significantly following the administration of BT by the endotracheal route in the 5- and 10-mg/kg groups, and sections of these autopsied dog lungs showed no apparent pathologic changes.

The use of bretylium in prehospital ventricular fibrillation

Bretylium tosylate is recommended by the American Heart Association Standards for Advanced Cardiac Life Support for refractory ventricular fibrillation after countershock, sodium bicarbonate, and epinephrine. According to this protocol, paramedics gave five to six milligrams per kilogram of intravenous bretylium by bolus in 96 patients with refractory fibrillation over a 24-month period. A positive response was defined as the presence of a palpable pulse following bretylium and countershock. Thirty-five percent of patients (34/96) responded following bretylium. Twenty-one percent (20/96) responded only temporarily with a rhythm and pulse. Fifteen percent (14/96) maintained a stable rhythm and vital signs on admission to the hospital, but only five patients, 5% of the total population, (5/96), were eventually discharged home. Clinical variables were similar in non-responders, temporary responders, and those admitted, but the times from the onset of Advanced Cardiac Life Support to receiving bretylium were 23.5 min, 20.3 min, and 14.3 min respectively. We conclude that about one-third of patients in refractory ventricular fibrillation respond following bretylium and countershock and that earlier bretylium use may give better results.

Severe hypotension due to the use of bretylium for postcardiotomy ventricular arrhythmias

We describe three patients who developed refractory hypotension after the administration of bretylium tosylate for postoperative ventricular ectopy. In one patient, the administration of vasopressors and fluid restored the blood pressure, but in the other two patients these measures failed, necessitating open-heart cardiac massage. The hemodynamic effects of bretylium are unpredictable; therefore, this drug should be used cautiously in the treatment of postcardiotomy ventricular arrhythmias.

Antiarrhythmic, antifibrillatory, and hemodynamic actions of bethanidine sulfate: an orally effective analog of bretylium for suppression of ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Bethanidine sulfate is a chemical and pharmacologic analog of bretylium tosylate that has virtually identical antifibrillatory and inotropic actions on the heart. Bretylium is the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for the "prophylaxis and treatment of ventricular fibrillation." Unlike bretylium, which is poorly absorbed from the gut and limited to parenteral use, oral bethanidine is absorbed rapidly. Bethanidine was given to 23 patients with recurrent multiple drug refractory ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Eighteen patients (78%) had complete suppression of spontaneous or electrophysiologically inducible tachyarrhythmias; 3 were improved and 2 had no benefit. In 6 of a 9 patient subgroup studied by programmed electrophysiologic drug testing, bethanidine completely prevented previously inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias at the maximal stimulus tested (including 4 extrastimuli and burst-pacing at 10 times threshold). Cardiac output measured in 6 patients 1 to 2 hours after bethanidine was increased in 4, unchanged in 2, and decreased in 1. Ten patients on long-term therapy with bethanidine and protriptylene (to prevent orthostatic hypotension) have been free of arrhythmias from 2 to 26 (average 13) months.

Suppression of ventricular fibrillation and positive inotropic action of bethanidine sulfate, a chemical analog of bretylium tosylate that is well absorbed orally

Bethanidine sulfate is a closely related chemical analog of bretylium that has virtually identical pharmacologic and antifibrillatory actions on the ventricle. Unlike bretylium, which is very poorly absorbed from the gut, bethanidine is rapidly and effectively absorbed after oral administration. Bethanidine increased ventricular fibrillation threshold in the normal dog heart from an average control value of 28.5 mA to an average peak value of 66.5 mA, an increase of 150 percent. In the infarcted heart, bethanidine increased ventricular fibrillation threshold from an average postinfarction level of 14.4 mA to an average peak value of 55.3 mA, an increase of 327 percent. Like bretylium, the antifibrillatory action of bethanidine was manifested by the appearance of nonsustained ventricular fibrillation when superthreshold shocks induced episodes of ventricular fibrillation lasting from 2 to 120 seconds and converting spontaneously to sinus rhythm. In contrast, the untreated dog heart must always be defibrillated electrically. The onset of antifibrillatory action began as early as 2 minutes after intravenous administration and 15 to 30 minutes after oral administration; peak action occurred in approximately 60 minutes. Bethanidine had prolonged positive inotropic action in the isolated heart as reflected by an increase in cardiac output and blood pressure lasting up to 60 minutes. Bethanidine lowered coronary vascular resistance and increased coronary blood flow. The oral efficacy and rapid onset of action gives bethanidine a potential role in the prevention of out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation.