Dual Defibrillation is Highly Variable: An Analysis of Pulse Interval Delivered in Dual Defibrillation

Keep shocking: Double sequential defibrillation for refractory ventricular fibrillation

Double sequential defibrillation is proposed as a novel modality of managing refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, existing evidence has not been enough to support this. Here, we report an interesting case of a 54-year-old male who suffered from cardiac arrest with VF rhythm. The patient did not respond to 11 consecutive shocks along with antiarrhythmic medications. However, double sequential defibrillation terminated the VF. He had another episode of VF unresponsive to thirty minutes of standard defibrillation on his way to the catheterization laboratory. Again, the VF was terminated by double sequential defibrillation. Five days later, the patient was discharged home without neurological sequels.

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.

Resuscitating Resuscitation: Advanced Therapies for Resistant Ventricular Dysrhythmias

BACKGROUND

More than 640,000 combined in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur annually in the United States. However, survival rates and meaningful neurologic recovery remain poor. Although "shockable" rhythms (i.e., ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT)) have the best outcomes, many of these ventricular dysrhythmias fail to return to a perfusing rhythm (resistant VF/VT), or recur shortly after they are resolved (recurrent VF/VT).

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses 4 emerging therapies in the emergency department for treating these resistant or recurrent ventricular dysrhythmias: beta-blocker therapy, dual simultaneous external defibrillation, stellate ganglion blockade, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We discuss the underlying physiology of each therapy, review relevant literature, describe when these approaches should be considered, and provide evidence-based recommendations for these techniques.

DISCUSSION

Esmolol may mitigate some of epinephrine's negative effects when used during resuscitation, improving both postresuscitation cardiac function and long-term survival. Dual simultaneous external defibrillation targets the region of the heart where ventricular fibrillation typically resumes and may apply a more efficient defibrillation across the heart, leading to higher rates of successful defibrillation. Stellate ganglion blocks, recently described in the emergency medicine literature, have been used to treat patients with recurrent VF/VT, resulting in significant dysrhythmia suppression. Finally, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is used to provide cardiopulmonary support while clinicians correct reversible causes of arrest, potentially resulting in improved survival and good neurologic functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

These emerging therapies do not represent standard practice; however, they may be considered in the appropriate clinical scenario when standard therapies are exhausted without success.

Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation Treated with Double Simultaneous Defibrillation: Pilot Study

Introduction

Refractory shockable rhythm has a high mortality rate and poor neurological outcome. Treatments for refractory shockable rhythm presenting after defibrillation and medical treatment are not definite. We conducted research on the application of double simultaneous defibrillation (DSiD) for refractory shockable rhythms.

Methods

This is a retrospective pilot study performed using medical records from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017. The prephase was from January to December 2016. The post-phase was from January to December 2017. During the prephase, we conducted conventional defibrillation with one defibrillator, and during the post-phase, we conducted DSiD using two defibrillators. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included survival to hospital admission and good neurological outcome at 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher's exact test. Data were regarded statistically significant when p < 0.05.

Result

A total of 38 patients were included. Twenty-one patients underwent conventional defibrillation, and 17 underwent DSiD. The DSiD group had a higher survival to admission rate (14/17 (82.4%) vs. 6/21 (28.6%), p=0.001) and showed a trend for higher survival to discharge (7/17 (41.2%) vs. 3/21 (14.3%), p=0.078). Good neurological outcome at 12 months of the DSiD group was higher than that of the conventional defibrillation group, but the difference was not statistically significant (5/17 (29.4%) vs 2/21 (9.5%), p=0.207).

Conclusion

In patients with refractory shockable rhythms, DSiD has increased survival to hospital admission and a trend of increased survival to hospital discharge. However, DSiD did not improve neurological outcome at 12 months.