Randomized double-blind trial of sotalol versus lignocaine in out-of-hospital refractory cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachyarrhythmia

Landiolol for refractory ventricular fibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicated by refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) is associated with poor outcome. Beta-1-receptor selective blockade might overcome refractory VF and improve survival. This trial investigates the efficacy and safety of prehospital landiolol in OHCA and refractory VF.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial, patients with OHCA and recurrent or refractory VF (at least 3 defibrillation attempts and last rhythm shockable), pretreated with epinephrine and amiodarone, were allocated to receive add-on treatment with landiolol or placebo. Landiolol was given as a 20 mg bolus infusion. The primary efficacy outcome was time from trial drug infusion to sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Safety outcomes included the onset of bradycardia and asystole.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were enrolled, 19 were allocated to the landiolol group and 17 to the placebo group. Time from trial drug infusion to sustained ROSC was similar between treatment groups (39 min [landiolol] versus 41 min [placebo]). Sustained ROSC was numerically lower in the landiolol group compared with the placebo group (7 patients [36.8%] versus 11 patients [64.7%], respectively). Asystole within 15 min of trial drug infusion occurred significantly more often in the landiolol group than in the placebo group (7 patients [36.8%] and 0 patients [0.0%], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with OHCA and refractory VF who are pretreated with epinephrine and amiodarone, add-on bolus infusion of landiolol 20 mg did not lead to a shorter time to sustained ROSC compared with placebo. Landiolol might be associated with bradycardia and asystole.

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.

Comparing Drugs for Out-of-hospital, Shock-refractory Cardiac Arrest: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of medications used in out-of-hospital, shock-refractory cardiac arrest remains controversial. This study aims to compare the treatment outcomes of medications for out-of-hospital, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT).

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of participants older than eight years old who had atraumatic, out-of-hospital, shock-refractory VF/pVT in which at least one studied group received a medication. We conducted a database search on October 28, 2019, that included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Citations of relevant meta-analyses were also searched. We performed frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) to combine the comparisons. The outcomes were analyzed by using odds ratios (OR) and compared to placebo. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes included the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and the neurological outcome at discharge. We ranked all outcomes using surface under the cumulative ranking score.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies with 6,582 participants. The NMA of 20 comparisons included 12 medications and placebo. Only norepinephrine showed a significant increase of ROSC (OR = 8.91, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-42.29). Amiodarone significantly improved survival to hospital admission (OR = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.01-2.32). The ROSC and survival-to-hospital admission data were significantly heterogeneous with the I2 of 55.1% and 59.1%, respectively. This NMA satisfied the assumption of transitivity.

CONCLUSION

No medication was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge from out-of-hospital, shock-refractory cardiac arrest. For the secondary outcomes, norepinephrine was associated with improved ROSC and amiodarone was associated with an increased likelihood of survival to hospital admission in the NMA.

Frequency of Medical Reversal Among Published Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)

OBJECTIVE

To characterize what proportion of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients experiencing cardiac arrest find that an established practice is ineffective or harmful, that is, a medical reversal.

METHODS

We reviewed a database of all published RCTs of cardiac arrest patient populations between 1995 and 2014. Articles were classified on the basis of whether they tested a new or existing therapy and whether results were positive or negative. A reversal was defined as a negative RCT of an established practice. Further review and categorization were performed to confirm that reversals were supported by subsequent systematic review, as well as to identify the type of medical practice studied in each reversal. This study was conducted from October 2017 to June 17, 2019.

RESULTS

We reviewed 92 original articles, 76 of which could be conclusively categorized. Of these, 18 (24%) articles examined a new medical practice, whereas 58 (76%) tested an established practice. A total of 18 (24%) studies had positive findings, whereas 58 (76%) reached a negative conclusion. Of the 58 articles testing existing standard of care, 44 (76%) reversed that practice, whereas 14 (24%) reaffirmed it.

CONCLUSION

Reversal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation practices is widespread. This investigation sheds new light on low-value practices and patterns of medical research and suggests that novel resuscitation practices have low pretest probability and should be empirically tested with rigorous trials before implementation.

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.

Does Sotalol Still Have a Role in the Management of Arrhythmias?

Despite proven effectiveness in treating tachyarrhythmias, sotalol is proarrhythmic and can cause torsades de pointes. Given the emergence of studies that show no benefit from rhythm control strategies in managing atrial fibrillation, as well as the introduction of nonpharmacological approaches to treating arrhythmias, we felt it necessary to ascertain if there was any role for sotalol given its side effects. Review of the literature regarding sotalol use in the prevention and treatment of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias seems to show that more effective and safer agents and nonpharmacological alternatives are currently available. However, sotalol still seems to be useful in preventing supraventricular tachyarrhythmias postcardiac surgery and in reverting hemodynamically stable sustained ventricular tachycardias in the setting of coronary artery disease. Its role in the prevention of tachyarrhythmias in the setting of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy requires further investigation.

Myocardial Irritation from a Left Ventricular Assist Device Resulting in Refractory Ventricular Tachycardia

BACKGROUND

Due to an increasing prevalence of heart failure but a steady rate of heart transplantation, the number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted is growing. These patients present to emergency departments (EDs) with a variety of complications from their implanted device as well as their baseline cardiomyopathy. One-third of patients will present with a dysrhythmia, the most common of which is ventricular tachycardia.

CASE REPORT

A 77-year-old man with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and HeartMate II LVAD presented with sustained ventricular tachycardia and 43 automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) discharges. Due to left ventricular remodeling, ongoing diuresis, and positioning of his LVAD inflow cannula against his interventricular septum, a likely dysrhythmogenic foci, he quickly decompensated with sedation while in the ED. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Refractory ventricular tachycardia is a common dysrhythmia for LVAD patients and may lead to full cardiopulmonary arrest. Common strategies such as chest compressions are used only in limited scenarios, but medical management is possible. This should focus on resolution of the dysrhythmia and identification of the etiology, including possible mechanical compromise.

Drugs in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Managing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involves unique challenges, including delays in the initiation of advanced interventions and a limited number of trained personnel on scene. Recent out-of-hospital randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and metaanalyses provide key insights into what interventions are best proven to positively impact patient outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We review the literature on medications used in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and summarize evidence-based guidelines from the American Heart Association that form the basis for most emergency medical services cardiac arrest protocols across the United States.

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.

The Use of Intravenous Sotalol in Cardiac Arrhythmias

Sotalol is a non-selective beta-adrenergic blocking agent without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity. It has the additional unique property of producing pronounced prolongation of the cardiac action potential duration. Sotalol therapy has been indicated for the management of supraventricular arrhythmias, refractory life threatening ventricular arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation/flutter. Until recently, sotalol was only available in the oral form, however, it was approved for intravenous administration by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The current recommendations are for sotalol 75-150mg to be administered intravenously over 5hours. This rate of administration does not reflect the majority of the research that has been performed with regards to intravenous sotalol. Also, the safety of intravenous bolus dosing of 100mg over 1 and 5minutes has previously been demonstrated. The antiarrhythmic action of sotalol depends on its ability to prolong refractoriness in the nodal and extra nodal tissue. Hence, by giving a lower dose over a long duration, patients may not necessarily benefit from its anti-arrhythmic potential. The purpose of this article is to review the research that has been conducted with regards to dosage and safety of intravenous sotalol, its electrophysiological effects and finally the spectrum of arrhythmias in which it has been used to date.

Sotalol

Sotalol is effective for treating atrial fibrillation (AF), ventricular tachycardia, premature ventricular contractions, and supraventricular tachycardia. Racemic (DL) sotalol inhibits the rapid component of the delayed rectifier potassium current. There is a near linear relationship between sotalol dosage and QT interval prolongation. However, in dose ranging trials in patients with AF, low-dose sotalol was not more effective than placebo. Orally administered sotalol has a bioavailability of nearly 100%. The only significant drug interactions are the need to avoid or limit use of concomitant drugs that cause QT prolongation, bradycardia, and/or hypotension.

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.

Use of beta-blockers for the treatment of cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Advanced Life Support guidelines recommend the use of epinephrine during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), as to increase coronary blood flow and perfusion pressure through its alpha-adrenergic peripheral vasoconstriction, allowing minimal rises in coronary perfusion pressure to make defibrillation possible. Contrasting to these alpha-adrenergic effects, epinephrine's beta-stimulation may have deleterious effects through an increase in myocardial oxygen consumption and a reduction of subendocardial perfusion, leading to postresuscitation cardiac dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE

The present paper consists of a systematic review of the literature regarding the use of beta-blockade in cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT).

METHODS

Studies were identified through MEDLINE electronic databases research and were included those regarding the use of beta-blockade during CPR.

RESULTS

Beta-blockade has been extensively studied in animal models of CPR. These studies not only suggest that beta-blockade could reduce myocardial oxygen requirements and the number of shocks necessary for defibrillation, but also improve postresuscitation myocardial function, diminish arrhythmia recurrences and prolong survival. A few case reports described successful beta-blockade use in patients, along with two prospective human studies, suggesting that it could be safe and effectively used during cardiac arrest in humans.

CONCLUSION

Even though the existing literature points toward a beneficial effect of beta-blockade in patients presenting with cardiac arrest due to VF/pulseless VT, high quality human trials are still lacking to answer this question definitely.

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.

Delayed versus immediate defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Human studies over the last decade have indicated that delaying initial defibrillation to allow a short period of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may promote a more responsive myocardial state that is more likely to respond to defibrillation and result in increased rates of restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and/or survival. Out-of-hospital studies have produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of CPR prior to defibrillation in relation to survival to hospital discharge. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of delayed defibrillation preceded by CPR with immediate defibrillation on survival to hospital discharge.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of key electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted independently by two reviewers. Randomised controlled trials meeting the eligibility criteria were critically appraised according to the Cochrane Group recommended methodology. Meta-analyses were conducted for the outcomes of survival to hospital discharge overall and according to response time of emergency medical services.

RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials were identified which addressed the question of interest. All included studies were methodologically appropriate to include in a meta-analysis. Pooled results from the three studies demonstrated no benefit from providing CPR prior to defibrillation compared to immediate defibrillation for survival to hospital discharge (OR 0.94 95% CI 0.46-1.94). Meta-analysis of results according to ambulance response time (</=5min or >5min) also showed no difference in survival rates.

CONCLUSION

Delaying initial defibrillation to allow a short period of CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to VF demonstrated no benefit over immediate defibrillation for survival to hospital discharge irrespective of response time. There is no evidence that CPR before defibrillation is harmful. Based on the existing evidence, EMS jurisdictions are justified continuing with current practice using either defibrillation strategy.

Nifekalant versus lidocaine for in-hospital shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of nifekalant, a pure class III anti-arrhythmic drug, and lidocaine in patients with shock-resistant in-hospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between August 2005 and March 2008, we conducted a prospective, two-arm, cluster observational study, in which participating hospitals were pre-registered either to the nifekalant arm or the lidocaine arm. Patients were enrolled if they had in-hospital VF or VT resistant to at least two defibrillation shocks. Congenital or drug-induced long QT syndrome was excluded. The primary end-point was termination of VF or VT with/without additional shock. The secondary end-points were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-month survival and survival to hospital discharge. We also assessed the frequency of adverse events, including asystole, pulseless electrical activity and torsade de pointes.

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients were enrolled. After nifekalant, 22 of 27 patients showed termination of VF or VT, as compared with 15 of 28 patients treated with lidocaine with/without additional shock (odds ratio (OR): 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-13.0; P=0.03). Twenty-three of 27 patients given nifekalant showed ROSC, as compared with 15 of 28 patients given lidocaine (OR: 5.0; 95% CI: 1.4-18.2; P=0.01). There was no difference in 1-month survival or survival to hospital discharge between the nifekalant and lidocaine arms. There was a higher incidence of asystole with lidocaine (7 of 28 patients) than with nifekalant (0 of 27 patients) (P=0.005). Torsade de pointes was not observed.

CONCLUSION

Nifekalant was more effective than lidocaine for termination of arrhythmia and for ROSC in patients with shock-resistant in-hospital VF or VT (umin-CTR No. UMIN 000001781).

β-Blockers for the treatment of cardiac arrest from ventricular fibrillation?

More than 160,000 people suffer sudden cardiac death each year in the US. It is estimated that ventricular fibrillation (VF) is the initial rhythm in approximately 30% of these cases. Ventricular fibrillation that does not respond to the first few defibrillation attempts is associated with mortality rates of up to 97%. Currently, no pharmacological intervention has been shown to increase long-term survival in patients with shock-refractory VF. The purpose of this review article is to evaluate whether beta-blocker administration during the resuscitation of cardiac arrest from VF or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) improves outcome. We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for human clinical trials, animal experimental trials, review articles, case reports and abstracts published between 1966 and September 2006. No human prospective randomized controlled trial has studied the effects of beta-blocker administration during VF directly. Prospective trials of anti-arrhythmics with beta-blocking properties have been published, as well as several case reports/case series and experimental animal studies. The evidence thus far suggests that beta-blockade during resuscitation from VF may be associated with increasing rates of resuscitation, greater post-resuscitation survival, and improved post-resuscitation myocardial function. These positive effects on outcome may be mediated by a decrease in the oxygen requirements of the fibrillating heart, thus improving the overall balance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand during resuscitation. While no significant detrimental effects directly related to low dose beta-blockade during VF have been reported in the studies reviewed, concerns relating to possible loss of myocardial contractility and hypotension remain. To this day, high quality human trials are lacking. Preliminary human studies are needed to assess the effects of beta-blockers in the treatment of cardiac arrest from ventricular fibrillation or pulseless VT further.