Cargando…
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
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, cont...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28144168 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S109339 |
_version_ | 1782497364882227200 |
---|---|
author | Anantharaman, Venkataraman Tay, Seow Yian Manning, Peter George Lim, Swee Han Chua, Terrance Siang Jin Tiru, Mohan Charles, Rabind Antony Sudarshan, Vidya |
author_facet | Anantharaman, Venkataraman Tay, Seow Yian Manning, Peter George Lim, Swee Han Chua, Terrance Siang Jin Tiru, Mohan Charles, Rabind Antony Sudarshan, Vidya |
author_sort | Anantharaman, Venkataraman |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5248978 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52489782017-01-31 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 Open Access Emerg Med Original Research 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. Dove Medical Press 2017-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5248978/ /pubmed/28144168 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S109339 Text en © 2017 Anantharaman et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Anantharaman, Venkataraman Tay, Seow Yian Manning, Peter George Lim, Swee Han Chua, Terrance Siang Jin Tiru, Mohan Charles, Rabind Antony Sudarshan, Vidya 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 |
title | 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 |
title_full | 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 |
title_fullStr | 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 |
title_full_unstemmed | 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 |
title_short | 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 |
title_sort | 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 |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28144168 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S109339 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT anantharamanvenkataraman amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT tayseowyian amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT manningpetergeorge amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT limsweehan amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT chuaterrancesiangjin amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT tirumohan amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT charlesrabindantony amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT sudarshanvidya amulticenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT anantharamanvenkataraman multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT tayseowyian multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT manningpetergeorge multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT limsweehan multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT chuaterrancesiangjin multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT tirumohan multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT charlesrabindantony multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment AT sudarshanvidya multicenterprospectiverandomizedstudycomparingtheefficacyofescalatinghigherbiphasicversuslowbiphasicenergydefibrillationsinpatientspresentingwithcardiacarrestintheinhospitalenvironment |