Prophylactic lidocaine in the early phase of suspected myocardial infarction

Sudden Cardiac Death in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Sudden cardiac death in acute coronary syndromes mostly results from complex ventricular arrhythmias. Although the incidence has fallen with contemporary management, they still pose a threat for many patients. Treatment consists of immediate termination by electrical cardioversion and prompt coronary revascularization for relief of ischemia. Beta-blockers administered prophylactically have a protective effect. For recurrent episodes, pharmacologic treatment consists of beta-blockers and amiodarone, or, in nonresponsive patients, lidocaine. Other antiarrhythmic drugs play only a marginal role. Catheter ablation performed in qualified centers can be effective in recurrent episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation triggered by premature ventricular contractions.

Prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation (electrocardiogram sector is higher than baseline). Ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction is associated with high risk of mortality. The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic lidocaine in preventing death among people with myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 13 April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1986 to 13 April 2015). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 13 April 2013) and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restriction in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction. We considered all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model and conducted trial sequential analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 randomised controlled trials involving 11,948 participants. These trials compared lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention, disopyramide, mexiletine, tocainide, propafenone, amiodarone, dimethylammonium chloride, aprindine and pirmenol. Overall, trials were underpowered and had high risk of bias. Ninety-seven per cent of trials (36/37) were conducted without an a priori sample size estimation. Ten trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Trials were conducted in 17 countries, and intravenous intervention was the most frequent route of administration.In trials involving participants with proven or non-proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences regarding all-cause mortality (213/5879 (3.62%) vs 199/5848 (3.40%); RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; participants = 11727; studies = 18; I(2) = 15%); low-quality evidence), cardiac mortality (69/4184 (1.65%) vs 62/4093 (1.51%); RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.50; participants = 8277; studies = 12; I(2) = 12%; low-quality evidence) and prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation (76/5128 (1.48%) vs 103/4987 (2.01%); RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; participants = 10115; studies = 16; I(2) = 18%; low-quality evidence). In terms of sinus bradycardia, lidocaine effect is imprecise compared with effects of placebo or no intervention (55/1346 (4.08%) vs 49/1203 (4.07%); RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.80; participants = 2549; studies = 8; I(2) = 21%; very low-quality evidence). In trials involving only participants with proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (148/2747 (5.39%) vs 135/2506 (5.39%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; participants = 5253; studies = 16; I(2) = 9%; low-quality evidence). No significant differences were noted between lidocaine and any other antiarrhythmic drug in terms of all-cause mortality and ventricular fibrillation. Data on overall survival 30 days after myocardial infarction were not reported. Lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention increased risk of asystole (35/3393 (1.03%) vs 14/3443 (0.41%); RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.26; participants = 6826; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and dizziness/drowsiness (74/1259 (5.88%) vs 16/1274 (1.26%); RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.47; participants = 2533; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. Trial sequential analyses suggest that additional trials may not be needed for reliable conclusions to be drawn regarding these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane review found evidence of low quality to suggest that prophylactic lidocaine has very little or no effect on mortality or ventricular fibrillation in people with acute myocardial infarction. The safety profile is unclear. This conclusion is based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. However (disregarding the risk of bias), trial sequential analysis suggests that additional trials may not be needed to disprove an intervention effect of 20% relative risk reduction. Smaller risk reductions might require additional higher trials.

Neuropsychiatric Side-Effects of Lidocaine: Examples from the Treatment of Headache and a Review

Lidocaine has been used in treatment of patients with refractory headache. Personal observations of neuropsychiatric toxicity in these patients led us to review our cases and the literature systematically for lidocaine side-effects, especially neuropsychiatric symptoms. In our series of 20 patients, side-effects were observed in all, the most frequent being neuropsychiatric (75%) and cardiological (50%). When reviewing published series on intravenous lidocaine use, reports of side-effects range from 0 to 100%, with neuropsychiatric symptoms being reported in 1.8–100%. Thirty-six case reports of lidocaine-induced psychiatric symptoms were also analysed. Psychiatric symptoms of toxicity were similar in most patients, despite their differing ages, pathologies, co-therapies and lidocaine dosages. In conclusion, lidocaine neuropsychiatric toxicity has a well-recognized stereotypical clinical presentation that is probably unrecognized in headache series. As lidocaine represents an emerging alternative therapy in headache, particularly in short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing, clinicians and patients should be aware of the extent of this problem.

Age-related differences in the use of cardiac medications in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Benefits of aspirin and beta-blocker use in patients with coronary artery disease and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction are well documented in all age groups.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether aspirin, beta-blockers, and ACE inhibitors are equally used in geriatric (> or =65 years) versus younger (<65 years) patients with coronary artery disease.

SETTING

University-affiliated major academic hospital.

METHODS

Records of 402 patients with coronary artery disease were analyzed for use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and ACE inhibitors. One hundred thirty patients with contraindications to use of these agents were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 272 study patients, 85% were using aspirin and 71% beta-blockers. Among the patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, 79% were using ACE inhibitors. One hundred forty-seven patients were of geriatric age, whereas 125 were of younger age. No significant difference in the use of aspirin (82% versus 89%, P = 0.10), beta-blockers (71% versus 70%, P = 0.85), or ACE inhibitors (86% versus 69%, P = 0.13) was found between geriatric and younger patients. This lack of difference in use of cardiac medications between geriatric and younger patients persisted on gender-based subgroup analysis. On decade-of-age-based analysis, aspirin use was not equally distributed among all the decades of age (P < 0.005), but beta-blocker use was.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study demonstrate equal use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and ACE inhibitors in geriatric versus younger patients with coronary artery disease. Aspirin use was not equally distributed among all the decades of age.

Prophylactic lidocaine use in acute myocardial infarction: incidence and outcomes from two international trials. The GUSTO-I and GUSTO-IIb Investigators

BACKGROUND

Early meta-analyses suggested that prophylactic lidocaine use reduces ventricular fibrillation but increases mortality rates after acute myocardial infarction. We determined the frequency and effect on clinical outcomes with its use in the thrombolytic era.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 43,704 patients enrolled in GUSTO-I or GUSTO-IIb who had ST-segment elevation, underwent thrombolysis, and survived at least 1 hour after enrollment. Odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the risk of asystole, atrioventricular block, ventricular fibrillation, and ventricular tachycardia during hospitalization; for 24-hour, in-hospital, and 30-day mortality rates; and for 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates after adjustment for baseline predictors of death. In GUSTO-I and GUSTO-IIb, 16% and 3.5% of patients, respectively, received prophylactic lidocaine. They had a lower risk of death at 24 hours (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) and trends toward lower odds of in-hospital death (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.01) and death at 30 days (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1. 02). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, however, the odds of death were similar with or without lidocaine (OR 0.90 and 0. 97, respectively). Outside the United States, lidocaine was associated with higher incidences of all serious arrhythmias, but in US patients it conferred a lower likelihood of ventricular fibrillation and no increase in asystole, atrioventricular block, or mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic lidocaine use has decreased with the advent of thrombolysis, although its use may not be associated with increased mortality rates.

Multicenter randomized trial and a systematic overview of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

More than 20 randomized trials and 4 meta-analyses have been conducted on the use of prophylactic lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction (MI). The results suggest that lidocaine reduces ventricular fibrillation (VF) but increases mortality rates in acute MI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with ST-elevation MI who were examined <6 hours after symptom onset (n = 903) were randomly assigned to either lidocaine or no lidocaine and to either streptokinase and heparin or heparin alone. Lidocaine was given as 4 boluses of 50 mg each every 2 minutes, then an infusion of 3 mg/min for 12 hours, then 2 mg/min for 36 hours. We compared the incidence of in-hospital death and ventricular arrhythmias. We then performed a meta-analysis of prophylactic lidocaine in acute MI that included these and prior trial results. The rates of VF and death with and without lidocaine were calculated for each trial, then odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the risk of these events overall with and without lidocaine. Patients given lidocaine in the randomized study had significantly less VF (2.0% vs 5.7% without lidocaine, P =.004) and a trend toward increased mortality rates (9.7% vs 7.0%, P =.145). Meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant trends toward reduced VF (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1. 09) and increased mortality rates (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36) with lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine reduces VF but may adversely affect mortality rates. The routine use of prophylactic lidocaine in acute MI is not recommended.

Effects of prehospital care on outcome in patients with cardiac illness

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients with acute cardiac illness transported by ambulance for whom prehospital care was provided by emergency medical technician-paramedics (EMT-Ps) or EMTs trained in defibrillation (EMT-Ds).

DESIGN

A prospective chart review carried out over 3.5 years.

SETTING

The Hamilton-Wentworth region of Ontario, Canada, which covers 1,136 km2 and includes five receiving hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

We prospectively identified 8,720 potentially eligible patients from approximately 30,000 who presented to the ambulance service. We reviewed hospital charts to confirm eligibility. The group of 8,720 patients yielded 3,066 patients with acute cardiac illness who met all other eligibility requirements. We excluded patients in cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), length of hospital stay, and mortality were evaluated. Analysis was performed with chi 2 tests for association, linear regression, and logistic regression. Of the eligible patients who received prehospital EMS care, 783 sustained MIs. The proportions of people discharged alive with the diagnosis of MI did not differ between crew types (P = .16). Average hospital stay was 13 days in both groups for patients with the discharge diagnosis of MI; hospital stay ranged from 9 (EMT-D) to 11 days (EMT-P) for any patient with a discharge diagnosis other than MI. These values were statistically similar. The odds ratio of having had an MI after treatment by an EMT-D crew was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, .86 to 1.21) compared with that for treatment by an EMT-P crew.

CONCLUSIONS

In an urban setting with short (less than 10 minutes) average transport times, the availability of prehospital paramedic care does not affect occurrence of MI, length of hospital stay, or mortality of patients presenting to the EMS system with cardiac illness.

Evaluation of intravenous lidocaine for the termination of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in patients with coronary artery disease with or without healed myocardial infarction

Prospective evaluations of intravenous lidocaine as therapy for sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) in the absence of acute myocardial infarction are lacking. Lidocaine has been promulgated as first-line therapy in patients with VT, but studies evaluating its efficacy in the electrophysiology laboratory suggest that it has poor effects in terminating or preventing induction of VT. Thus, this study sought to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of lidocaine in 3 cohorts with induced or spontaneous VT. One hundred twenty-eight patients with stable VT, occurring either spontaneously or induced at the time of electrophysiologic study either in the baseline state or at the time of pharmacologic testing, were evaluated. The response rate to lidocaine therapy as manifested by termination of VT was the primary goal of the study. Of these patients, 10 (8%) had termination of VT after lidocaine therapy. There were no significant differences in age, ejection fraction, VT cycle length, and mean dose of lidocaine between responders and 118 nonresponders. There were no serious side effects or adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, angina, or congestive heart failure). Lidocaine, although safe, is ineffective in terminating stable VT not associated with acute myocardial infarction.

Con: antiarrhythmic drugs should not be used to suppress ventricular ectopy in the perioperative period

The alterations in autonomic tone imposed by the conduct of anesthesia and surgery predispose patients to ventricular ectopy. It is important to initially view any ectopy as a warning sign and promptly check the adequacy of ventilation and oxygenation. Most commonly an inadequate depth of anesthesia, surgical manipulation or electrolyte abnormality will be causative. Treatment of this underlying problem will usually suffice to terminate the ectopy. Importantly, many patients have preexisting, chronic, complex ventricular ectopy that gets revealed because of perioperative electrocardiographic monitoring. All available pharmacologic agents have significant adverse side effects. To date, all investigations examining outcome of suppression of ventricular ectopy show that successful suppression of ventricular ectopy was associated with an increased mortality. Although the prognosis for patients is worse when complex ventricular ectopy is associated with cardiac structural abnormalities, the optimal therapeutic approach to such patients remains undefined. Unless new data supporting the use of antiarrhythmic drugs in the perioperative setting become available, the risk to benefit ratio is considered unfavorable.

Early out-of-hospital lidocaine administration decreases the incidence of primary ventricular fibrillation in acute myocardial infarction

This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of early prehospital intravenous administration of lidocaine in preventing primary ventricular fibrillation (PVF) in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Sixty patients with suspected AMI, seen by the Mobile Coronary Care Unit (MCCU) of Florence, were randomly allocated at home to treatment with lidocaine (bolus i.v. of 1 mg/kg, followed by an infusion of 4 mg/min) or placebo (infusion of saline at a rate of 1 mL/min), respectively. The lidocaine group (27 patients) and the control group (33 patients) were not significantly different in age, clinical condition, or time of randomization. The diagnosis of AMI was confirmed in all 60 patients during the hospital stay. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurred in 5 patients in the control group in comparison to none in the lidocaine group (P < 0.05). Three patients experienced VF at home and were successfully resuscitated by an MCCU cardiologist. In another two patients, VF occurred during the first 4 hours after onset of symptoms. No major side effects were observed after the infusion of lidocaine. Our findings support the effectiveness of the prophylactic administration of lidocaine in preventing PVF in the prehospital phase of AMI and suggest that the drug can be safely administered in this setting by prehospital personnel.

An undocumented effect of lidocaine revealed by computerized electrocardiography

The influence of an intravenous push of lidocaine 1 mg/kg followed by 2 mg/min infusion on total QRS amplitude and R-to-S duration in leads V2-V4 of the electrocardiogram was studied in 11 patients who were hospitalized in the coronary care unit. A computerized system sampled the amplitude and timing of peak R and S waves of 1100 QRS complexes of leads V2-V4, starting two minutes before the first push of lidocaine. Curves of amplitude and R-to-S duration versus time were obtained in all patients. QRS amplitude in V2 and V3 increased significantly in 10 of 11 patients (p < 0.005). The mean voltage increase for all patients was 0.1 +/- 0.07 millivolt. The authors also observed a mild prolongation of R-to-S duration (0.8 +/- 1.0 millisecond p < 0.02). This new finding, obtained by a simple computerized system, may possibly have potential future practical clinical application as a feedback parameter for closed-loop control systems for the administration of lidocaine.

The use of antiarrhythmics in advanced cardiac life support

Antiarrhythmic agents have been used to treat malignant ventricular arrhythmias in the setting of acute myocardial ischemia with proven efficacy for many years. Thus, it has been presumed that these agents would be efficacious for the treatment of cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, hard data supporting this contention are unavailable to date. Furthermore, some of the experimental data in this area are conflicting, especially regarding the relative effects of lidocaine and bretylium. Thus, little definitive can be said based on experimental information. In two randomized patient studies, lidocaine and bretylium performed comparably. Because of the frequent use of lidocaine and thus the familiarity of most health care professionals with its use, it makes educational sense to utilize lidocaine as the antiarrhythmic drug of first choice during the cardiac arrest sequence. Recent data suggesting that amiodarone may be efficacious in patients with recurrent arrhythmias require additional confirmation. Although antiarrhythmic agents have been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant arrhythmias in patients with acute myocardial infarction, their use prophylactically for patients with suspected infarction (advocated in the past) has recently undergone reevaluation. It is now clear that despite a reduction in ventricular fibrillation, overall mortality may be increased. This may be because the prophylactic treatment of patients with suspected infarction includes a large number of patients not at risk for ventricular fibrillation who still may be at risk for drug toxicity. Thus, prophylactic administration of lidocaine to all patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction can no longer be recommended. There are inadequate data upon which to base a recommendation concerning the use of lidocaine in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy. The group most likely to benefit from lidocaine are patients with ST segment elevation who present early after the onset of acute myocardial infarction. The use of lidocaine in this group requires additional study. At present, despite enthusiasm for the prophylactic use of magnesium for the treatment of arrhythmias, data are inadequate to support its routine administration. However, given the importance of magnesium and potassium levels in the genesis of malignant arrhythmias, their levels in plasma should be assessed, and abnormalities should be promptly corrected. The potential uses of antiarrhythmic agents during advanced cardiac life support span a remarkably diverse number of applications. For the purpose of this review, only the use of these agents during CPR and during the early hours of acute or suspected acute myocardial infarction will be considered.

Frequency and prognostic significance of secondary ventricular fibrillation complicating acute myocardial infarction. SPRINT Study Group

The incidence of secondary ventricular fibrillation (VF) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 2.4% in a large cohort of unselected patients with AMI (142 of 5,839). Secondary VF was more frequent in patients with recurrent AMI (4%) than in those with a first AMI (1.9%) (p < 0.01). The hospital course was more complicated and in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with secondary VF than in those with the same clinical hemodynamic condition but without VF (56 vs 16%; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analyses confirmed secondary VF complicating AMI as an independent predictor of high in-hospital mortality, with an odds ratio of 7 (95% confidence interval 4.6-10.6). However, long-term mortality after discharge (mean follow-up 5.5 years) was not increased in patients with as compared with those without secondary VF (39 vs 42%). These findings were also true when patients receiving beta blockers and antiarrhythmic therapy were excluded from analysis. Thus, this life-threatening arrhythmia occurring during hospitalization is not a marker of recurrent susceptibility to VF or an indicator of increased mortality after discharge from the hospital.

Lidocaine to prevent ventricular fibrillation in the prehospital phase of suspected acute myocardial infarction: the North-Norwegian Lidocaine Intervention Trial

The efficacy of lidocaine to prevent ventricular fibrillation during the prehospital phase of suspected acute myocardial infarction was assessed 3 hours after administration in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 204 patients examined within 6 hours after onset of symptoms were included, and acute myocardial infarction was later confirmed in 63% of these. Lidocaine, administered as a 100 mg intravenous bolus dose followed by a 300 mg intramuscular injection, failed to prevent ventricular fibrillation, which was observed in 2 (2.1%) of 96 patients in the lidocaine group and in 3 (3.0%) of 101 patients in the placebo group (p = 0.95; odds ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.3). In addition, sudden cardiac collapse with unknown heart rhythm was observed in three patients who received lidocaine (3.1%) compared with none in the placebo group (p = 0.23; odds ratio 7.6, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 22.1). The results of this small study suggest that lidocaine, even when given in a high dose, is ineffective in preventing ventricular fibrillation when administered before hospitalization for suspected acute myocardial infarction. Prophylactic use of lidocaine in this situation may therefore not be warranted or advisable.

Declining incidence of ventricular fibrillation in myocardial infarction. Implications for the prophylactic use of lidocaine

BACKGROUND

The purposes of the present investigation were 1) to track the incidence of primary ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the control and lidocaine-treated groups in the randomized control trials (RCTs) of lidocaine prophylaxis against primary VF in acute myocardial infarction, with particular emphasis on the time frame of the randomized trial, and 2) to estimate the number of patients who must receive lidocaine currently to prevent one episode of VF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The following variables from RCTs published between 1969 and 1988 were entered into logistic regression models to predict the percent of patients developing VF: year of publication of the RCT, method of data analysis used in the RCT, route and technique of lidocaine administration, duration of monitoring for VF, and exclusion criteria before randomization (congestive heart failure/cardiogenic shock, ventricular tachycardia/VF, or bradycardia/atrioventricular block). Year of publication was a significant predictor of VF in both the control and lidocaine groups (p less than or equal to 0.002) even after adjusting for other covariates. Based on a univariate logistic regression model with year as the predictor variable, it was estimated that the incidence of primary VF in the control group fell from 4.51% in 1970 to 0.35% in 1990 and from 4.32% down to 0.11% for the lidocaine group over the same time period. Thus, about 400 patients would currently need prophylaxis with lidocaine to prevent one episode of VF.

CONCLUSIONS

Present estimates of the risk:benefit ratio of lidocaine prophylaxis should consider the low risk of VF in control patients and the large number who need lidocaine prophylaxis to prevent one episode of VF. When added to the previously reported trend toward excess mortality in lidocaine-treated patients, these data argue against the routine prophylactic use of lidocaine in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

The golden hours of the myocardial infarction: nonthrombolytic interventions

Emergency care of patients with acute myocardial infarction requires active decision making to use agents that may improve morbidity and mortality. Thrombolysis remains the primary tool to accomplish this goal. Other pharmacologic agents, including lidocaine, nitrates, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, and aspirin, have been used acutely in myocardial infarction in the hopes of preventing death and salvaging myocardium. The decision to select one or all of these agents requires a knowledge of the clinical evidence of their efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratios. The clinical studies of the use of these agents acutely in the management of myocardial infarction are reviewed.

Effect of epinephrine and lidocaine therapy on outcome after cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation

One hundred ninety-nine patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest persisted in ventricular fibrillation after the first defibrillation attempt and were then randomly assigned to receive either epinephrine or lidocaine before the next two shocks. The resulting electrocardiographic rhythms and outcomes for each group of patients were compared for each group and also compared with results during the prior 2 years, a period when similar patients primarily received sodium bicarbonate as initial adjunctive therapy. Asystole occurred after defibrillation with threefold frequency after repeated injection of lidocaine (15 of 59, 25%) compared with patients treated with epinephrine (four of 55, 7%) (p less than 0.02). There was no difference in the proportion of patients resuscitated after treatment with either lidocaine or epinephrine (51 of 106, 48% vs. 50 of 93, 54%) and in the proportion surviving (18, 19% vs. 21, 20%), respectively. Resuscitation (64% vs. 50%, p less than 0.005) but not survival rates (24% vs. 20%) were higher during the prior 2-year period in which initial adjunctive drug treatment for persistent ventricular fibrillation primarily consisted of a continuous infusion of sodium bicarbonate. The negative effect of lidocaine or epinephrine treatment was explained in part by their influence on delaying subsequent defibrillation attempts. Survival rates were highest (30%) in a subset of patients who received no drug therapy between shocks. We conclude that currently recommended doses of epinephrine and lidocaine are not useful for improving outcome in patients who persist in ventricular fibrillation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Bretylium tosylate versus lidocaine in experimental cardiac arrest

Bretylium tosylate has been shown effective in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation and in the prevention of its recurrence. However, lidocaine is generally preferred because bretylium could have adverse hemodynamic effects related to its antiadrenergic action. To explore further the differences between these two antiarrhythmic agents, the authors compared the effects of bretylium, lidocaine, and saline on a standardized dog model of ventricular fibrillation followed by electromechanical dissociation (EMD). The protocol included three successive episodes of cardiac arrest in each animal. Three minutes before each episode of ventricular fibrillation, 5 mg/kg of bretylium tosylate (n = 11), 1 mg/kg of lidocaine (n = 9) or saline (n = 12) were administered blindly. There was no difference in the duration of cardiac arrest (bretylium, 8 min 18 sec; lidocaine, 7 min 54 sec; saline, 8 min 20 sec) or the total doses of epinephrine required to resuscitate the animals. Both bretylium and lidocaine appeared to preserve cardiac function 5 minutes after recovery, as stroke volume increased from 17.8 +/- 6.7 to 18.7 +/- 6.7 mL (NS) after bretylium and from 17.7 +/- 7.7 to 19.0 +/- 7.0 mL (NS) after lidocaine, but decreased from 19.0 +/- 5.3 to 14.6 +/- 6.0 mL (P less than .05) after saline. During the first 10 minutes of EMD, ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia recurred in 4 dogs treated with lidocaine, 3 dogs treated with saline, but no dog treated with bretylium (P less than .05 between bretylium and saline).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Lidocaine in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction: the controversy over prophylactic or selective use

In acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine is considered the drug of choice for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. While initially a so-called "selective" treatment strategy prevailed, in which lidocaine was administered only after the onset of certain "warning arrhythmias," the prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction has been gaining wider usage in intravenous and intramuscular application in recent years. Both therapeutic applications have been found to be problematic of late, which has led to increasingly restrictive use of lidocaine. While in selective treatment forms, the definition and prompt recognition of the so-called warning arrhythmias created especially acute problems, the prophylactic therapeutic use is problematic due to the occurrence of sometimes serious side effects, which is to be expected as the size of the collective being treated increases. Both treatment forms also appear limited by the narrow preventive efficacy of lidocaine against malignant ventricular arrhythmias, especially against ventricular fibrillation. The current therapeutic recommendation for lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction should be limited to patients presenting with very frequent and complex ventricular arrhythmias, especially when these are elicited by an R-on-T phenomenon. Side effects and other therapeutic problems encountered when the therapeutic modality is switched or adjusted can be greatly reduced by careful dosing and selection of the optimal combination substances.

Pharmacologic intervention in prehospital care: a critical appraisal

In more than 15 years of paramedic operation, fewer than 15 prehospital studies have been undertaken on the pharmacologic intervention by paramedics. Many of these studies suffer from inadequate sample size or deficient study design. There is no evidence that any medication given by the prehospital care provider is beneficial or cannot safely be delayed until arrival at hospital. Multicenter trials must be designed and implemented if we are to provide the evidence necessary to evaluate our current practice.

Arrhythmia prophylaxis after acute myocardial infarction: a decade of controversy

Primary ventricular fibrillation continues to be a major complication of acute myocardial infarction occurring in 5-9% of patients in the coronary care unit and in a higher percentage of pre-hospital admissions. Prophylactic anti-arrhythmic drugs can prevent primary ventricular fibrillation. Lidocaine has been used for this purpose and can be administered safely and effectively in most patients by following well-established programs based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data. The in-hospital mortality for patients with primary ventricular fibrillation exceeds that of matched controls not having the arrhythmia, and many studies show a higher 1-, 3-, and 5-year mortality. Other studies have failed to confirm these long-term results and have produced controversy among cardiologists. I continue to recommend prophylactic antiarrhythmic drugs for all patients with acute infarction, especially in those undergoing early interventional therapy.

Prophylactic versus selective lidocaine for early ventricular arrhythmias of myocardial infarction

A total of 333 patients arriving within 6 h of the onset of suspected or proven but uncomplicated myocardial infarction were randomized to treatment by either the prophylactic or the selective lidocaine strategy. Patients were monitored for 24 h. The major end points were sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and emergent adverse effects of lidocaine. There were four episodes of emergent adverse effects of lidocaine, all in patients treated by the prophylactic strategy (2.4%, p = NS). There were two episodes of nonagonal, sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, both in patients treated by the selective strategy (1.2%, p = NS). The difference between major end points was 1.2% in favor of the selective strategy (p = NS). There were significant differences in lesser ventricular arrhythmias and lesser lidocaine adverse effects but no difference in mortality rate (selective = 3%, prophylactic = 5%, p = NS). Potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias occurred only in patients with myocardial infarction. Nonlethal but complex ventricular arrhythmias were rare in patients without infarction. However, toxicity occurred in patients with and without infarction. The major conclusion of this study is that there is no important overall advantage of either strategy for lidocaine use in such patients. The advantage of one is the risk of the other. The strategy used should be selected for individual patients, and the use of one strategy for all patients would seem inappropriate.