Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A multicenter prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy of escalating higher biphasic versus low biphasic energy defibrillations in patients presenting with cardiac arrest in the in-hospital environment.
Anantharaman, Venkataraman; Tay, Seow Yian; Manning, Peter George; Lim, Swee Han; Chua, Terrance Siang Jin; Tiru, Mohan; Charles, Rabind Antony; Sudarshan, Vidya.
Afiliação
  • Anantharaman V; Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital.
  • Tay SY; Department of Emergency Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
  • Manning PG; Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital.
  • Lim SH; Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital.
  • Chua TS; Department of Cardiology, National Heart Centre.
  • Tiru M; Accident and Emergency Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore.
  • Charles RA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital.
  • Sudarshan V; Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital.
Open Access Emerg Med ; 9: 9-17, 2017.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28144168
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Biphasic defibrillation has been practiced worldwide for >15 years. Yet, consensus does not exist on the best energy levels for optimal outcomes when used in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF)/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT).

METHODS:

This prospective, randomized, controlled trial of 235 adult cardiac arrest patients with VF/VT was conducted in the emergency and cardiology departments. One group received low-energy (LE) shocks at 150-150-150 J and the other escalating higher-energy (HE) shocks at 200-300-360 J. If return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was not achieved by the third shock, LE patients crossed over to the HE arm and HE patients continued at 360 J. Primary end point was ROSC. Secondary end points were 24-hour, 7-day, and 30-day survival.

RESULTS:

Both groups were comparable for age, sex, cardiac risk factors, and duration of collapse and VF/VT. Of the 118 patients randomized to the LE group, 48 crossed over to the HE protocol, 24 for persistent VF, and 24 for recurrent VF. First-shock termination rates for HE and LE patients were 66.67% and 64.41%, respectively (P=0.78, confidence interval 0.65-1.89). First-shock ROSC rates were 25.64% and 29.66%, respectively (P=0.56, confidence interval 0.46-1.45). The 24-hour, 7-day, and 30-day survival rates were 85.71%, 74.29%, and 62.86% for first-shock ROSC LE patients and 70.00%, 50.00%, and 46.67% for first-shock ROSC HE patients, respectively. Conversion rates for further shocks at 200 J and 300 J were low, but increased to 38.95% at 360 J.

CONCLUSION:

First-shock termination and ROSC rates were not significantly different between LE and HE biphasic defibrillation for cardiac arrest patients. Patients responded best at 150/200 J and at 360 J energy levels. For patients with VF/pulseless VT, consideration is needed to escalate quickly to HE shocks at 360 J if not successfully defibrillated with 150 or 200 J initially.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Open Access Emerg Med Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Open Access Emerg Med Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article