Cargando…

Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis

There is no evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs can improve long-term survival or survival with favorable neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients. We did this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy of various antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Qi, Lin, Zhen, Chen, Hairong, Pan, Biyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10101268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37058064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000033195
_version_ 1785025473314553856
author Wang, Qi
Lin, Zhen
Chen, Hairong
Pan, Biyun
author_facet Wang, Qi
Lin, Zhen
Chen, Hairong
Pan, Biyun
author_sort Wang, Qi
collection PubMed
description There is no evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs can improve long-term survival or survival with favorable neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients. We did this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy of various antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: We searched studies from inception until Nov 11, 2022 through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, and Wanfang database. All studies comparing different antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest were included in this meta-analysis. Outcomes were survival to hospital discharge in cardiac arrest, survival to hospital admission/24 h and favorable neurological outcome. This network meta-analysis was performed by R software. RESULTS: Finally, a total of 9 studies (10,980 patients) were finally included in this network meta-analysis. Amiodarone (odd ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.61–3.27) and lidocaine (OR 1.53, 95% CrI 1.05–2.25) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital admission/24 h with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.19, 95% CrI 1.54–3.14) and lidocaine (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.09–2.32) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital discharge with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.43, 95% CrI 1.61–3.68) and lidocaine (OR 1.62, 95% CrI 1.04–2.53) was superior than placebo in terms of the favorable neurological outcome with statistically significant. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) shows that amiodarone ranked first (SUCRA, 99.6%), lidocaine ranked second (SUCRA, 49.6%), placebo ranked the last (SUCRA, 0.86%). Inverted funnel plot is essentially symmetrical, it is possible that this study has a small sample effect or a small publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone had the best effect on both survival to hospital admission, discharge and more favorable neurological outcome. Thus, amiodarone should be listed as first line drug for cardiac arrest. However, the quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of amiodarone or lidocaine used to treat cardiac arrest. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are required for further research in future.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10101268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101012682023-04-14 Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis Wang, Qi Lin, Zhen Chen, Hairong Pan, Biyun Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 There is no evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs can improve long-term survival or survival with favorable neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients. We did this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy of various antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: We searched studies from inception until Nov 11, 2022 through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, and Wanfang database. All studies comparing different antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest were included in this meta-analysis. Outcomes were survival to hospital discharge in cardiac arrest, survival to hospital admission/24 h and favorable neurological outcome. This network meta-analysis was performed by R software. RESULTS: Finally, a total of 9 studies (10,980 patients) were finally included in this network meta-analysis. Amiodarone (odd ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.61–3.27) and lidocaine (OR 1.53, 95% CrI 1.05–2.25) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital admission/24 h with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.19, 95% CrI 1.54–3.14) and lidocaine (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.09–2.32) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital discharge with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.43, 95% CrI 1.61–3.68) and lidocaine (OR 1.62, 95% CrI 1.04–2.53) was superior than placebo in terms of the favorable neurological outcome with statistically significant. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) shows that amiodarone ranked first (SUCRA, 99.6%), lidocaine ranked second (SUCRA, 49.6%), placebo ranked the last (SUCRA, 0.86%). Inverted funnel plot is essentially symmetrical, it is possible that this study has a small sample effect or a small publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone had the best effect on both survival to hospital admission, discharge and more favorable neurological outcome. Thus, amiodarone should be listed as first line drug for cardiac arrest. However, the quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of amiodarone or lidocaine used to treat cardiac arrest. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are required for further research in future. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10101268/ /pubmed/37058064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000033195 Text en Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle 7100
Wang, Qi
Lin, Zhen
Chen, Hairong
Pan, Biyun
Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis
title Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis
title_full Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis
title_short Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis
title_sort comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: a network meta-analysis
topic 7100
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10101268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37058064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000033195
work_keys_str_mv AT wangqi comparisontheefficacyofamiodaroneandlidocaineforcardiacarrestanetworkmetaanalysis
AT linzhen comparisontheefficacyofamiodaroneandlidocaineforcardiacarrestanetworkmetaanalysis
AT chenhairong comparisontheefficacyofamiodaroneandlidocaineforcardiacarrestanetworkmetaanalysis
AT panbiyun comparisontheefficacyofamiodaroneandlidocaineforcardiacarrestanetworkmetaanalysis