Short Attention Span Summary
Neither amiodarone nor lidocaine made an impact on survival or neurological outcome for out-of-hospital arrest due to shock-refractory v-fib or pulseless v-tach. In witnessed arrest, patients who received active drug had improved survival. My take is that I don’t plan to stop using antiarrhythmic agents for patients with v-fib or v-tach that does not respond to initial defibrillation. What do you plan to do with this study – give drugs for all, give if witnessed arrest, not give drugs? Take the poll.
FOAM Report
- ESICM
- Journal Watch
- Medscape
- OHSU
- WikEM
Abstract
N Engl J Med. 2016 May 5;374(18):1711-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514204. Epub 2016 Apr 4.
Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Kudenchuk PJ, Brown SP, Daya M, Rea T, Nichol G, Morrison LJ, Leroux B,Vaillancourt C, Wittwer L, Callaway CW, Christenson J, Egan D, Ornato JP,Weisfeldt ML, Stiell IG, Idris AH, Aufderheide TP, Dunford JV, Colella MR,Vilke GM, Brienza AM, Desvigne-Nickens P, Gray PC, Gray R, Seals N,Straight R, Dorian P; Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators.
Comment in
- Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest–Are Drugs Ever the Answer? [N Engl J Med. 2016]
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit.
METHODS:
In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock.
RESULTS:
In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo.
CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).
PMID: 27043165 [PubMed – in process]
