Resuscitation · 2011
The use of antiarrhythmic drugs for adult cardiac arrest: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ong Marcus Eng Hock, Pellis Tommaso, Link Mark S
Аннотация
AIMS: In adult cardiac arrest, antiarrhythmic drugs are frequently utilized in acute management and legions of medical providers have memorized the dosage and timing of administration. However, data supporting their use is limited and is the focus of this comprehensive review.
METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports.
RESULTS: Of 185 articles found, only 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these, 9 were randomised controlled trials. Nearly all trials solely evaluated Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) and Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), and excluded Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA) and asystole. In VT/VF patients, amiodarone improved survival to hospital admission, but not to hospital discharge when compared to lidocaine in two randomized controlled trials.
CONCLUSION: Amiodarone may be considered for those who have refractory VT/VF, defined as VT/VF not terminated by defibrillation, or VT/VF recurrence in out of hospital cardiac arrest or in-hospital cardiac arrest. There is inadequate evidence to support or refute the use of lidocaine and other antiarrythmic agents in the same settings.
METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports.
RESULTS: Of 185 articles found, only 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these, 9 were randomised controlled trials. Nearly all trials solely evaluated Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) and Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), and excluded Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA) and asystole. In VT/VF patients, amiodarone improved survival to hospital admission, but not to hospital discharge when compared to lidocaine in two randomized controlled trials.
CONCLUSION: Amiodarone may be considered for those who have refractory VT/VF, defined as VT/VF not terminated by defibrillation, or VT/VF recurrence in out of hospital cardiac arrest or in-hospital cardiac arrest. There is inadequate evidence to support or refute the use of lidocaine and other antiarrythmic agents in the same settings.