F Sanfilippo1, C Corredor2, C Santonocito3, G Panarello4, A Arcadipane5, G Ristagno6, T Pellis7. 1. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), Via Tricomi 5, 90127 Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: fgsanfilippo@ismett.edu. 2. Cardiovascular Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Toronto General Hospital, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada. Electronic address: carloscorredor@doctors.org.uk. 3. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), Via Tricomi 5, 90127 Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: cristina.santonocito@gmail.com. 4. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), Via Tricomi 5, 90127 Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: gpanarello@ismett.edu. 5. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), Via Tricomi 5, 90127 Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: aarcadipane@ismett.edu. 6. IRCCS-Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri", Milan, Italy; Italian Resuscitation Council-Scientific Committee, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: gristag@gmail.com. 7. Italian Resuscitation Council-Scientific Committee, Bologna, Italy; Anesthesia Institute, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Electronic address: thomas.pellis@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) with shockable rhythm recommend amiodarone, while lidocaine may be used if amiodarone is not available. Recent underpowered evidence suggests that amiodarone, lidocaine or placebo are equivalent with respect to survival at hospital discharge, but amiodarone and lidocaine showed higher hospital admission rates. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy of amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo. METHODS: We included studies published in PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until May 15th, 2016. The primary outcomes were survival at hospital admission and discharge in OOH-CA patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCT) according to resuscitation with amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo. If feasible, secondary analysis was performed including in the analysis also patients with in-hospital CA and data from non-RCT. RESULTS: A total of seven findings were included in the metanalysis (three RCTs, 4 non-RCTs). Amiodarone was as beneficial as lidocaine for survival at hospital admission (primary analysis odds ratio-OR 0.86-1.23, p=0.40) and discharge (primary analysis OR 0.87-1.30, p=0.56; secondary analysis OR 0.86-1.27, p=0.67). As compared with placebo, survival at hospital admission was higher both for amiodarone (primary analysis OR 1.12-1.54, p<0.0001; secondary analysis OR 1.07-1.45, p<0.005) and lidocaine (secondary analysis only OR 1.14-1.58, p=0.0005). With regards to hospital discharge there were no differences between placebo and amiodarone (primary outcome OR 0.98-1.44, p=0.08; secondary outcome OR 0.92-1.33, p=0.28) or lidocaine (secondary outcome only OR 0.97-1.45, p=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone and lidocaine equally improve survival at hospital admission as compared with placebo. However, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine improve long-term outcome.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) with shockable rhythm recommend amiodarone, while lidocaine may be used if amiodarone is not available. Recent underpowered evidence suggests that amiodarone, lidocaine or placebo are equivalent with respect to survival at hospital discharge, but amiodarone and lidocaine showed higher hospital admission rates. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy of amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo. METHODS: We included studies published in PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until May 15th, 2016. The primary outcomes were survival at hospital admission and discharge in OOH-CA patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCT) according to resuscitation with amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo. If feasible, secondary analysis was performed including in the analysis also patients with in-hospital CA and data from non-RCT. RESULTS: A total of seven findings were included in the metanalysis (three RCTs, 4 non-RCTs). Amiodarone was as beneficial as lidocaine for survival at hospital admission (primary analysis odds ratio-OR 0.86-1.23, p=0.40) and discharge (primary analysis OR 0.87-1.30, p=0.56; secondary analysis OR 0.86-1.27, p=0.67). As compared with placebo, survival at hospital admission was higher both for amiodarone (primary analysis OR 1.12-1.54, p<0.0001; secondary analysis OR 1.07-1.45, p<0.005) and lidocaine (secondary analysis only OR 1.14-1.58, p=0.0005). With regards to hospital discharge there were no differences between placebo and amiodarone (primary outcome OR 0.98-1.44, p=0.08; secondary outcome OR 0.92-1.33, p=0.28) or lidocaine (secondary outcome only OR 0.97-1.45, p=0.10). CONCLUSIONS:Amiodarone and lidocaine equally improve survival at hospital admission as compared with placebo. However, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine improve long-term outcome.
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Robert A Berg; Stephen Bernard; Bentley J Bobrow; Clifton W Callaway; Tobias Cronberg; Rudolph W Koster; Peter J Kudenchuk; Graham Nichol; Gavin D Perkins; Tom D Rea; Claudio Sandroni; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Alain Cariou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Joseph S Piktel; Yi Suen; Shalen Kouk; Danielle Maleski; Gary Pawlowski; Kenneth R Laurita; Lance D Wilson Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Igor Stukalin; Oluwatobi R Olaiya; Viren Naik; Ellen Wiebe; Mike Kekewich; Michaela Kelly; Laura Wilding; Roxanne Halko; Simon Oczkowski Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2022-01-18