Cardiac Arrest Secondary to Accidental Hypothermia: The Physiology Leading to Hypothermic Arrest

Willmore, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.amj.2019.09.013

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 9 , 23 ] This requires a reassessment of the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest. [ 10 , 24 ] This study included a total of 9 studies, including 10,980 patients. According to the different treatments, patients were divided into amiodarone group, amiodarone plus lidocaine, lidocaine and placebo groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest: A network meta-analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is no evidence that antiarrhythmic drugs can improve long-term survival or survival with favorable neurological outcomes in cardiac arrest patients. We did this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy of various antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest patients. Methods: We searched studies from inception until Nov 11, 2022 through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, and Wanfang database. All studies comparing different antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest were included in this meta-analysis. Outcomes were survival to hospital discharge in cardiac arrest, survival to hospital admission/24 h and favorable neurological outcome. This network meta-analysis was performed by R software. Results: Finally, a total of 9 studies (10,980 patients) were finally included in this network meta-analysis. Amiodarone (odd ratio [OR] 2.28, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.61–3.27) and lidocaine (OR 1.53, 95% CrI 1.05–2.25) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital admission/24 h with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.19, 95% CrI 1.54–3.14) and lidocaine (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.09–2.32) was superior than placebo in terms of the survival to hospital discharge with statistically significant. Amiodarone (OR 2.43, 95% CrI 1.61–3.68) and lidocaine (OR 1.62, 95% CrI 1.04–2.53) was superior than placebo in terms of the favorable neurological outcome with statistically significant. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) shows that amiodarone ranked first (SUCRA, 99.6%), lidocaine ranked second (SUCRA, 49.6%), placebo ranked the last (SUCRA, 0.86%). Inverted funnel plot is essentially symmetrical, it is possible that this study has a small sample effect or a small publication bias. Conclusions: Amiodarone had the best effect on both survival to hospital admission, discharge and more favorable neurological outcome. Thus, amiodarone should be listed as first line drug for cardiac arrest. However, the quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of amiodarone or lidocaine used to treat cardiac arrest. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are required for further research in future.

show abstract