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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anantharaman, Venkataraman, Tay, Seow Yian, Manning, Peter George, Lim, Swee Han, Chua, Terrance Siang Jin, Tiru, Mohan, Charles, Rabind Antony, Sudarshan, Vidya
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