Abbonarsi

Defibrillation strategies for patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis - 10/09/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2024.07.059 
Jinzhou Yu, MPH a, 1, Yanwu Yu, MD b, 1, Huoyan Liang, MD c, Yan Zhang, MD b, Ding Yuan, MD b, Tongwen Sun, PhD c, Yi Li, PhD d, Yanxia Gao, PhD b,
a School of Nursing, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China 
b Emergency Department, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China 
c General Intensive Care Unit, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China 
d Emergency Department, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing 100730, China 

Corresponding author at: Emergency Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, Henan, China.Emergency DepartmentThe First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouHenan450052China

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to summarize the existing evidence about the effectiveness of double defibrillation (DD) in comparison to standard defibrillation for patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation (RVF). DD encompasses double “sequential” external defibrillation (DSeq-D) and double “simultaneous” defibrillation (DSim-D), with the study also shedding light on the respective effects of DSeq-D and DSim-D.

Methods

Investigators systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from their inception until June 06, 2024. The rate of survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome, while the incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), termination of ventricular fibrillation (VF), survival to hospital admission and good neurologic outcome were secondary outcomes. Relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed using I square value.

Results

A total of 6 trials, comprising 1360 patients, were included. One was an RCT, and five were observational cohort studies. The RCT showed that, compared to standard defibrillation, DSeq-D was associated with higher incidences of survival to hospital discharge, termination of VF, ROSC and good neurologic outcome. However, the pooled results of cohort studies found no benefit of DD over standard defibrillation in survival to hospital discharge (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46–1.78), nor in secondary outcomes. Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested DSim-D was linked with lower ROSC rate compared to standard defibrillation (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49–0.86), while there was no significance between DSeq-D and standard defibrillation (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70–1.42).

Conclusions

The benefit of DSeq-D in survival to hospital discharge for RVF patients was found in the RCT, but not in cohort studies. Additionally, DSim-D should be applied with greater caution for RVF patients. Further validation is needed through larger-scale and higher-quality trials.

Trial registry

INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY202340015; URL: inplasy.com/

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Refractory ventricular fibrillation, Double defibrillation, Double sequential external defibrillation, Double simultaneous defibrillation, Meta-analysis

Abbreviations : RVF, VF, pVT, DD, DSeq-D, DSim-D, RCTs, ROSC, CPR, NOS, IQR, SD, RR, CIs, vs.


Mappa


© 2024  The Authors. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 84

P. 149-157 - Ottobre 2024 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Osteopathic manipulation and its applicability in the emergency department: A narrative review
  • J. Pelletier, T. Capistrant, S.P. Nordt
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Candida auris: A focused review for emergency clinicians
  • Brit Long, Aaron J. Lacy, Alex Koyfman, Stephen Y. Liang

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.