Nifekalant Hydrochloride and Amiodarone Hydrochloride Result in Similar Improvements for 24-Hour Survival in Cardiopulmonary Arrest Patients: The SOS-KANTO 2012 Study

2024 RECOVER Guidelines: Advanced Life Support. Evidence and knowledge gap analysis with treatment recommendations for small animal CPR

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence and devise clinical recommendations on advanced life support (ALS) in dogs and cats and to identify critical knowledge gaps.

DESIGN

Standardized, systematic evaluation of literature pertinent to ALS following Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Prioritized questions were each reviewed by Evidence Evaluators, and findings were reconciled by ALS Domain Chairs and Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) Co-Chairs to arrive at treatment recommendations commensurate to quality of evidence, risk:benefit relationship, and clinical feasibility. This process was implemented using an Evidence Profile Worksheet for each question that included an introduction, consensus on science, treatment recommendations, justification for these recommendations, and important knowledge gaps. A draft of these worksheets was distributed to veterinary professionals for comment for 4 weeks prior to finalization.

SETTING

Transdisciplinary, international collaboration in university, specialty, and emergency practice.

RESULTS

Seventeen questions pertaining to vascular access, vasopressors in shockable and nonshockable rhythms, anticholinergics, defibrillation, antiarrhythmics, and adjunct drug therapy as well as open-chest CPR were reviewed. Of the 33 treatment recommendations formulated, 6 recommendations addressed the management of patients with nonshockable arrest rhythms, 10 addressed shockable rhythms, and 6 provided guidance on open-chest CPR. We recommend against high-dose epinephrine even after prolonged CPR and suggest that atropine, when indicated, is used only once. In animals with a shockable rhythm in which initial defibrillation was unsuccessful, we recommend doubling the defibrillator dose once and suggest vasopressin (or epinephrine if vasopressin is not available), esmolol, lidocaine in dogs, and/or amiodarone in cats.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated RECOVER ALS guidelines clarify the approach to refractory shockable rhythms and prolonged CPR. Very low quality of evidence due to absence of clinical data in dogs and cats continues to compromise the certainty with which recommendations can be made.

Refractory ventricular arrhythmias during aortic valve replacement and cardiac artery bypass requiring 16 attempts of electrical cardioversion: a case report

BACKGROUND

We report a patient in whom we failed to suppress ventricular fibrillation (VF) using nifekalant but succeeded using amiodarone during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

CASE PRESENTATION

A 65-year-old male with hemodialysis complained of dyspnea and was diagnosed with aortic valve stenosis and angina pectoris; he was opted for elective aortic valve replacement. When the aortic forceps were declamped during CPB, immediate VF was observed; several attempts of electrical cardioversion (EC) with lidocaine and landiolol and three administrations of nifekalant were temporarily effective. However, the rhythm subsequently changed to torsades de pointes. We administered 2 g of magnesium sulfate followed by three doses of amiodarone and initiated continuous infusion. Furthermore, we initiated the pacemaker and intra-aortic balloon pumping. These procedures seemed to be effective; the sinus rhythm was sustained until the end of the surgery.

CONCLUSION

We experienced a cardiac surgery requiring 16 EC attempts to terminate the life-threatening arrhythmias using amiodarone.

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.

Drugs in cardiac arrest: the rise and fall of antiarrhythmics

Since the publication of 2000 guidelines for resuscitation, amiodarone is considered the antiarrhythmic drug of choice for refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. However, to date there is no proven benefit in terms of neurologically intact survival to hospital discharge. A comprehensive search of the recent literature on amiodarone, nifekalant and lidocaine in cardiac arrest was performed. Amiodarone and nifekalant are superior to lidocaine with regards to the return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital admission. Nifekalant shows a trend towards quicker termination of ventricular fibrillation compared to amiodarone. There is great uncertainty about the efficacy of antiarrhythmics in cardiac arrest. Failure to show improvements regarding meaningful survival questions their current use and suggests the need for re-evaluating their place in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

How to manage various arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the cardiovascular intensive care

In the clinical practice of cardiovascular critical care, we often observe a variety of arrhythmias in the patients either with (secondary) or without (idiopathic) underlying heart diseases. In this manuscript, the clinical background and management of various arrhythmias treated in the CCU/ICU will be reviewed. The mechanism and background of lethal ventricular tachyarrhythmias vary as time elapses after the onset of MI that should be carefully considered to select a most suitable therapy. In the category of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, several diseases are known to be complicated by the various ventricular tachyarrhythmias with some specific mechanisms. According to the large-scale registry data, the most common arrhythmia is atrioventricular block. It is essential for the decision of permanent pacemaker indication to rule out the presence of transient causes such as ischemia and electrolyte abnormalities. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is very high in the patients with heart failure (HF) and myocardial infarction (MI). AF and HF have a reciprocal causal relationship; thus, both are associated with the poor prognosis. Paroxysmal AF occurs in 5 to 20% during the acute phase of MI and triggered by several specific factors including pump failure, atrial ischemia, and autonomic instability. After the total management of patients with various arrhythmias and basic heart diseases, the risk of sudden cardiac death should be stratified for each patient to assess the individual need for preventive therapies. Finally, it is recommended that the modalities of the treatment and prophylaxis should be selected on a case-by-case basis in the scene of critical care.

Does Antiarrhythmic Drug During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Improve the One-month Survival: The SOS-KANTO 2012 Study

BACKGROUND

Antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) are often used for fatal ventricular arrhythmias during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, the efficacy of initial AAD administration during CPR in improving long-term prognosis remains unknown. This study retrospectively evaluated the effect of AAD administration during CPR on 1-month prognosis in the SOS-KANTO 2012 study population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of the 16,164 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases, 1350 shock-refractory patients were included: 747 patients not administered AAD and 603 patients administered AAD. Statistical adjustment for potential selection bias was performed using propensity score matching, yielding 1162 patients of whom 792 patients were matched (396 pairs). The primary outcome was 1-month survival. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with favorable neurological outcome at 1 month. Logistic regression with propensity scoring demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) for 1-month survival in the AAD group of 1.92 (P < 0.01), whereas the OR for favorable neurological outcome at 1 month was 1.44 (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly greater 1-month survival was observed in the AAD group compared with the non-AAD group. However, the effect of ADD on the likelihood of a favorable neurological outcome remains unclear. The findings of the present study may indicate a requirement for future randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of ADD administration during CPR on long-term prognosis.

Meta-analysis of the efficacies of amiodarone and nifekalant in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia

Amiodarone (AMD) and nifekalant (NIF) are used in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia; however, only few studies have been conducted on their efficacies. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted. Relevant sources were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi. The outcomes were short-term and long-term survival in patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation /pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Thirty-three studies were analysed. The results showed that, compared to the control treatment, AMD did not improve short-term survival (odds ratio (OR): 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.71) or long-term survival (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.63-1.57). However, compared to the control treatment, NIF significantly improved short-term survival (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 2.21-4.72) and long-term survival (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36-2.59). No significant difference was observed in short-term survival (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.15) or long-term survival (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.67-2.31) between AMD- and NIF-treated patients. The results suggest that NIF is beneficial for short-term and long-term survival in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia; however, the efficacy of AMD in either outcome is not clear.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with refractory ventricular fibrillation

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency medicine 2017. Other selected articles can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2017. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Amiodarone and cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The 2015 Guidelines for Resuscitation recommend amiodarone as the antiarrhythmic drug of choice in the treatment of resistant ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. We reviewed the effects of amiodarone on survival and neurological outcome after cardiac arrest.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from 1940 to March 2016 without language restrictions. Randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies were selected.

RESULTS

Our search initially identified 1663 studies, 1458 from MEDLINE and 205 from Cochrane Library. Of them, 4 randomized controlled studies and 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for further review. Three randomized studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission (OR=1.402, 95% CI: 1.068-1.840, Z=2.43, P=0.015), but neither survival to hospital discharge (RR=0.850, 95% CI: 0.631-1.144, Z=1.07, P=0.284) nor neurological outcome compared to placebo or nifekalant (OR=1.114, 95% CI: 0.923-1.345, Z=1.12, P=0.475).

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission. However there is no benefit of amiodarone in survival to discharge or neurological outcomes compared to placebo or other antiarrhythmics.

Study on the priority of coronary arteriography or therapeutic hypothermia after return of spontaneous circulation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: results from the SOS-KANTO 2012 study

Many emergency physicians struggle with the clinical question of whether to perform therapeutic hypothermia (TH) or coronary angiography (CAG) first after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We analyzed the results of the SOS-KANTO 2012 study, which is a prospective, multicenter (67 emergency hospitals), observational study about OHCA conducted between January 2012 and March 2013 (n = 16,452). We compared two groups: the group in which TH was first performed (TH group), and the group in which CAG was performed first (CAG group) within 24 h after arrival. Two hundred and twenty-one patients were treated TH and CAG (TH group, 76 patients; CAG group, 145 patients). In addition, we selected patients who underwent coronary treatment. 164 patients underwent coronary treatment after CAG (TH group, 52 patients; CAG group, 112 patients). In patients in whom TH and CAG and coronary artery treatment were done, 42 patients (55.3 %) in the TH group and 86 patients (59.3 %) in the CAG group survived at 90 days. The cerebral performance category (CPC) 1 and 2 were 26.3 % (20 patients) in TH group, and 31.0 % (45 patients) in CAG group. In patients in whom TH and CAG with coronary artery treatment were performed, 29 patients (55.8 %) in the TH group and 64 patients (57.1 %) in the CAG group survived at 90 days. The rates of CPC 1 and 2 were 26.9 % (14 patients) in TH group, and 23.2 % (26 patients) in CAG group. There was no significant difference in 90-day survival between the two groups although it tended to be better in the CAG group than in the TH group. Whether TH or CAG was performed first did not affect the 90-day survival and 30-day neurological situation among patients with ROSC after OHCA.

[Drug Therapy for Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation: Comparison of Nifekalant and Amiodarone]

Early direct current (DC) shock is the most important therapy for ventricular fibrillation. Following the increased availability of automated external defibrillators (AED), the survival rate of cardiopulmonary arrest patients with ventricular fibrillation has improved. Although patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation require additional antiarrhythmic drug therapy, the optimal protocol has not been established. Nifekalant is a pure potassium channel blocker with a pyrimidinedione structure. Nifekalant was approved in Japan for the treatment of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 1999, and is widely used as a class III antiarrhythmic intravenous drug. Intravenous amiodarone was approved in Japan in 2007, and exhibits various effects on ion channels, receptors, sympathetic activity, and thyroid function. Nifekalant and amiodarone also exhibit many pharmacological and pharmacodynamic differences. As nifekalant has no negative inotropic effect and a rapid action and clearance with a short half-life, it has some advantages over amiodarone for use in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Indeed, data from clinical and animal studies suggest that nifekalant is superior to amiodarone for resuscitation of cardiopulmonary arrest resulting from shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation. A 300-mg bolus intravenous injection of amiodarone is considered an overdose for resuscitation of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation. Further clinical studies are required to evaluate the effects of nifekalant compared with amiodarone, and to determine the optimal dose of amiodaone, for resuscitation of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation.