Amiodarone for the Prevention of Reperfusion Ventricular Fibrillation

Samantaray, Aloka; Chandra, Abha; Panigrahi, Sanjukta

doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2009.07.007

Cited by 16 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All included studies were RCTs and, according to the item standard quality evaluation, five were classified as high-quality and the other three as moderate quality studies (Table 1). Among these studies, four were three-arm trials (Ayoub et al, 2009;Mauermann et al, 2012;Ghavidel et al, 2013;Yilmaz et al, 2014) of amiodarone versus lidocaine versus placebo, three compared lidocaine with placebo (Kirlangitis et al, 1990;Baraka et al, 2000;Vaziri et al, 2010), and one compared amiodarone with placebo (Samantaray et al, 2010). In all studies, all patients were scheduled to undergo elective surgery and were age-, gender-, and operative condition-matched (Table 2).…”

Section: Quality Assessment and Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, another study indicated that administration of lidocaine with a perfusion pump before ACC release reduced VF incidence from 70% to 11% (Baraka et al, 2000). As for amiodarone, subsequent studies demonstrated that this medication may achieve comparable (Samantaray et al, 2010) or even greater (Dorian et al, 2002) preventative effects against VF in patients who are at risk for development of VF and pulseless ventricular tachycardia during cardiac surgery. In contrast, several other studies reported that neither amiodarone nor lidocaine effectively prevented VF in cardiac surgeries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for preventing ventricular fibrillation after aortic cross-clamp release in open heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Zheng

Chen

et al. 2017

J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Quality Assessment and Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for preventing ventricular fibrillation after aortic cross-clamp release in open heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Zheng

Chen

et al. 2017

J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of ventricular fibrillation (VF) after release of the aortic crossclamp in patients undergoing cardiac surgery has been reported to be between 45% and 100%. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain the high incidence of VF, including ischemia-mediated increases in reentry, automaticity, and reperfusion injury. [8][9][10] VF may result in increased myocardial oxygen consumption, distension of the ventricle with resultant increases in wall tension, and acidosis of the myocardial tissue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Amiodarone versus lidocaine and placebo for the prevention of ventricular fibrillation after aortic crossclamping: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Mauermann

Pulido

Barbara

et al. 2012

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Ventricular fibrillation occurs commonly after aortic crossclamping in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Ventricular fibrillation increases myocardial oxygen consumption, and defibrillation may harm the myocardium. Thus, a pharmacologic approach to decreasing the incidence of ventricular fibrillation or the number of shocks required may be beneficial. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether amiodarone or lidocaine was superior to placebo for the prevention of ventricular fibrillation after aortic crossclamping in patients undergoing a variety of cardiac surgical procedures.Methods: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery requiring aortic crossclamping were randomized to receive lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, amiodarone 300 mg, or placebo before aortic crossclamp removal The primary outcomes were the incidence of ventricular fibrillation and the number of shocks required to terminate ventricular fibrillation.Results: A total of 342 patients completed the trial. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of ventricular fibrillation among treatment groups. The number of required shocks was categorized as 0, 1 to 3, and greater than 3. On multivariate analysis, patients receiving amiodarone required fewer shocks to terminate ventricular fibrillation (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.83; P ¼ .008 vs placebo). There was no difference between lidocaine and placebo in the number of required shocks (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.41; P ¼ .541). Conclusions:In patients undergoing a variety of cardiac surgical procedures, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine reduced the incidence of ventricular fibrillation. Amiodarone decreased the number of shocks required to terminate ventricular fibrillation.

show abstract

“…Myocardial IRI is often found in patients undergoing procedures involving ischemia reperfusion such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolysis, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and valve replacement, and its primary clinical manifestations are ventricular arrhythmia, lack of reflow phenomenon, and distal embolization. [10–12] During reperfusion, inflammatory, and oxidative stress injury causes white blood cells to release inflammatory mediators such as interleukins and to activate complement, leading to myocardial injury, and endothelial injury activates platelet resulting in microvasculature blockage. [13,14] Moreover, ventricular fibrillation or heart failure (HF) also arises from inner cell membrane instability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of prostaglandin E1 on reperfusion injury patients

Zhu

Ding

et al. 2017

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) is widely used as a pretreatment for myocardial reperfusion injury in animal experiments. However, the cardioprotective effects of PGE1 in patients have not been established. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate whether PGE1 is cardioprotective, based on the reduction of correlative reperfusion injury events (CRIE), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and biomarker release in patients with ischemia reperfusion injury.Methods:The Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized clinical trials confirming the effects of PGE1. Two investigators independently selected suitable trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.Results:Six studies in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (4 studies) and cardiac surgery (2 studies), comprising a total of 445 patients, were included in this review. The results showed that PGE1 reduced the incidence of CRIE (relative ratio 0.4 [95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.95]), the incidence of MACE (0.35 [0.17, 0.70]), and the level of troponin T (standardized mean difference 20.28 [20.47, 20.09]), creatine kinase-MB (−1.74 [−3.21, − 0.27]), interleukin-6 (−1.37 [−2.69, − 0.04]), and interleukin-8 (−2.05 [−2.75, − 1.34]).Conclusion:PGE1 may have beneficial effects on myocardial reperfusion injury in the clinic.

show abstract

Amiodarone for the Prevention of Reperfusion Ventricular Fibrillation

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for preventing ventricular fibrillation after aortic cross-clamp release in open heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for preventing ventricular fibrillation after aortic cross-clamp release in open heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Amiodarone versus lidocaine and placebo for the prevention of ventricular fibrillation after aortic crossclamping: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Effects of prostaglandin E1 on reperfusion injury patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About