Comparing intravenous amiodarone or lidocaine, or both, outcomes for inpatients with pulseless ventricular arrhythmias*

Comparison of the Effects of Lidocaine and Amiodarone on Patients With Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to compare the impact of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcomes following cardiac arrest. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as cohort and cross-sectional trials was undertaken, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Potential relevant studies were searched in databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from the beginning of databases to February 15, 2024. Outcomes assessed in this study were survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission or 24 hours, favorable neurological outcomes, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). A total of seven studies (five observational and two RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 19,081 patients with cardiac arrest. Pooled analysis showed no difference between amiodarone and lidocaine in terms of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio (OR): 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75 to 1.04), ROSC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.05, p-value: 0.25), favorable neurological outcomes (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.17, p-value: 0.38), and survival to 24 hours (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.21, p-value: 0.31). While lidocaine demonstrated a slight survival advantage, the differences were statistically insignificant. Similarly, no significant variations were observed in ROSC incidence, neurological outcomes, or survival at 24 hours. These findings align with current guidelines but underscore the necessity for further rigorous RCTs to provide conclusive recommendations.

Lidocaine as an anti-arrhythmic drug: Are there any indications left?

Lidocaine is classified as a class Ib anti-arrhythmic that blocks voltage- and pH-dependent sodium channels. It exhibits well investigated anti-arrhythmic effects and has been the anti-arrhythmic of choice for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias for several decades. Lidocaine binds primarily to inactivated sodium channels, decreases the action potential duration, and increases the refractory period. It increases the ventricular fibrillatory threshold and can interrupt life-threatening tachycardias caused by re-entrant mechanisms, especially in ischemic tissue. Its use was pushed into the background in the era of amiodarone and modern electric device therapy. Recently, lidocaine has come back into focus for the treatment of acute sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In this brief overview, we review the clinical pharmacology including possible side effects, the historical course, possible indications, and current Guideline recommendations for the use of lidocaine.

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

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.

Effectiveness of Amiodarone in Preventing the Occurrence of Reperfusion Ventricular Fibrillation After the Release of Aortic Cross-Clamp in Open-Heart Surgery Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of amiodarone in preventing the occurrence of reperfusion ventricular fibrillation (RVF) after aortic cross-clamp (ACC) release in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.

Methods

We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases through January 2021 for relevant studies addressing the efficacy of amiodarone in preventing RVF after ACC release in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A complete statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to express the results of dichotomous outcomes using random or fixed-effect models. The chi-square test and I² test were used to calculate heterogeneity.

Results

Seven studies (856 enrolled patients; 311 in the amiodarone group, 268 in the lidocaine group, and 277 in the placebo group) were selected for the meta-analysis. The incidence of RVF was significantly decreased in the amiodarone group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.50–0.94, P = 0.02). However, amiodarone and lidocaine did not confer any significant difference (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.61–1.59, P = 0.94). The percentage of patients requiring electric defibrillation counter shocks (DCSs) did not confer any significant difference between patients administered amiodarone and lidocaine or placebo (RR = 1.58, 95%CI: 0.29–8.74, P = 0.60; RR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.27–1.10, P = 0.09; respectively).

Conclusions

Amiodarone is more effective than a placebo in preventing RVF after ACC release in cardiac surgery. However, the amiodarone group required the same number of electrical DCSs to terminate RVF as the lidocaine or placebo groups.

Outcomes associated with amiodarone and lidocaine for the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest with shock-refractory pulseless ventricular tachyarrhythmia

BACKGROUND

To determine the association between amiodarone or lidocaine and outcomes in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT).

METHODS

A retrospective study in a single medical centre was conducted. Patients experiencing an IHCA between 2006 and 2015 were screened. Shock-refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias were defined as VF/pVT requiring more than one defibrillation attempt. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to study the associations between the independent variables and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were included. Among these, 113 patients (86.9%) were administered amiodarone as the first antiarrhythmic agent (amiodarone first) following VF/pVT, and the other patients were administered lidocaine (lidocaine first). The median time to the first defibrillation and first antiarrhythmic drug administration were 2 and 9 min, respectively. The analysis demonstrated that the amiodarone-first group experienced a higher likelihood of terminating the VF/pVT within three shocks (odds ratio: 11.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.34-100.84; p-value = 0.03), as compared with the lidocaine-first group. However, there were no significant differences between the amiodarone- and lidocaine-first groups in sustained return of spontaneous circulation, survival for 24 h, survival, or favourable neurological outcomes at hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

For patients with IHCA and shock-refractory VF/pVT, the adoption of an amiodarone-first strategy seemed to be associated with the termination of VF/pVT using fewer shocks. Nonetheless, because of the small sample size, additional large-scale studies should be conducted to investigate whether this advantage could be translated into a long-term benefit in survival or neurological outcomes.

Effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for shockable cardiac arrest: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to provide up-to-date evidence on effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for shockable cardiac arrest to help inform the 2018 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations.

METHODS

A search was conducted in electronic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to August 15, 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 9371 citations reviewed, a total of 14 RCTs and 17 observational studies met our inclusion criteria for adult population and only 1 observational study for pediatric population. Based on RCT level evidence for adult population, none of the anti-arrhythmic drugs showed any difference in effect compared with placebo, or with other anti-arrhythmic drugs for the critical outcomes of survival to hospital discharge and discharge with good neurological function. For the outcome of return of spontaneous circulation, the results showed a significant increase for lidocaine compared with placebo (RR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The high level evidence supporting the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during CPR for shockable cardiac arrest is limited and showed no benefit for critical outcomes of survival at hospital discharge, survival with favorable neurological function and long-term survival. Future high quality research is needed to confirm these findings and also to evaluate the role of administering antiarrhythmic drugs in children with shockable cardiac arrest, and in adults immediately after ROSC.

Meta-analysis of the efficacies of amiodarone and nifekalant in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia

Amiodarone (AMD) and nifekalant (NIF) are used in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia; however, only few studies have been conducted on their efficacies. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted. Relevant sources were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi. The outcomes were short-term and long-term survival in patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation /pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Thirty-three studies were analysed. The results showed that, compared to the control treatment, AMD did not improve short-term survival (odds ratio (OR): 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.71) or long-term survival (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.63-1.57). However, compared to the control treatment, NIF significantly improved short-term survival (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 2.21-4.72) and long-term survival (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36-2.59). No significant difference was observed in short-term survival (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.15) or long-term survival (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.67-2.31) between AMD- and NIF-treated patients. The results suggest that NIF is beneficial for short-term and long-term survival in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia; however, the efficacy of AMD in either outcome is not clear.

Amiodarone, lidocaine, magnesium or placebo in shock refractory ventricular arrhythmia: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Recent evidence challenges, the superiority of amiodarone, compared to other anti-arrhythmic medications, as the agent of choice in pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). We conducted Bayesian network and traditional meta-analyses to investigate the relative efficacies of amiodarone, lidocaine, magnesium (MgSO4) and placebo as treatments for pulseless VT or VF. Eleven studies [5200 patients, 7 randomized trials (4, 611 patients) and 4 non-randomized studies (589 patients)], were included in this meta-analysis. The search was conducted, from 1981 to February 2017, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Estimates were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% Credible Interval (CrI). Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modeling was used to estimate the relative ranking probability of each treatment group based on surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that lidocaine had superior effects on survival to hospital discharge, compared to amiodarone (OR, 2.18, 95% Cr.I 1.26-3.13), MgSO4 (OR, 2.03, 95% Cr.I 0.74-4.82) and placebo (OR, 2.42, 95% Cr.I 1.39-3.54). There were no statistical differences among treatment groups regarding survival to hospital admission/24 h (hrs) and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Probability analysis revealed that lidocaine was the most effective therapy for survival to hospital discharge (SUCRA, 97%). We conclude that lidocaine may be the most effective anti-arrhythmic agent for survival to hospital discharge in patients with pulseless VT or VF.

Acute hospital administration of amiodarone and/or lidocaine in shockable patients presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Terminating ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) is critical for successful resuscitation of patients with shockable cardiac arrest. In the event of shock-refractory VF, applicable guidelines suggest use of anti-arrhythmic agents. However, subsequent long-term outcomes remain unclear. A nationwide cohort study was therefore launched, examining 1-year survival rates in patients given amiodarone and/or lidocaine for cardiac arrest.

METHODS

Medical records accruing between years 2004 and 2011 were retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) for review. This repository houses all insurance claims data for nearly the entire populace (>99%). Candidates for study included all non-traumatized adults receiving DC shock and cardiopulmonary resuscitation immediately or within 6h of emergency room arrival. Analysis was based on data from emergency rooms and hospitalization.

RESULTS

One-year survival rates by treatment group were 8.27% (534/6459) for amiodarone, 7.15% (77/1077) for lidocaine, 11.10% (165/1487) for combined amiodarone/lidocaine use, and 3.26% (602/18,440) for use of neither amiodarone nor lidocaine (all, p<0.0001). Relative to those given neither medication, odds ratios for 1-year survival via multiple regression analysis were 1.84 (95% CI: 1.58-2.13; p<0.0001) for amiodarone, 1.88 (95% CI: 1.40-2.53; p<0.0001) for lidocaine, and 2.18 (95% CI: 1.71-2.77; p<0.0001) for dual agent use.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with shockable cardiac arrest, 1-year survival rates were improved with association of using amiodarone and/or lidocaine, as opposed to non-treatment. However, outcomes of patients given one or both medications did not differ significantly in intergroup comparisons.

Amiodarone and cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The 2015 Guidelines for Resuscitation recommend amiodarone as the antiarrhythmic drug of choice in the treatment of resistant ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. We reviewed the effects of amiodarone on survival and neurological outcome after cardiac arrest.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from 1940 to March 2016 without language restrictions. Randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies were selected.

RESULTS

Our search initially identified 1663 studies, 1458 from MEDLINE and 205 from Cochrane Library. Of them, 4 randomized controlled studies and 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for further review. Three randomized studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission (OR=1.402, 95% CI: 1.068-1.840, Z=2.43, P=0.015), but neither survival to hospital discharge (RR=0.850, 95% CI: 0.631-1.144, Z=1.07, P=0.284) nor neurological outcome compared to placebo or nifekalant (OR=1.114, 95% CI: 0.923-1.345, Z=1.12, P=0.475).

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission. However there is no benefit of amiodarone in survival to discharge or neurological outcomes compared to placebo or other antiarrhythmics.

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study (ROC-ALPS): Rationale and methodology behind an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest antiarrhythmic drug trial

BACKGROUND

Despite their wide use, whether antiarrhythmic drugs improve survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is not known. The ROC-ALPS is evaluating the effectiveness of these drugs for OHCA due to shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT).

METHODS

ALPS will randomize 3,000 adults across North America with nontraumatic OHCA, persistent or recurring VF/VT after ≥1 shock, and established vascular access to receive up to 450 mg amiodarone, 180 mg lidocaine, or placebo in the field using a double-blind protocol, along with standard resuscitation measures. The designated target population is all eligible randomized recipients of any dose of ALPS drug whose initial OHCA rhythm was VF/VT. A safety analysis includes all randomized patients regardless of their eligibility, initial arrhythmia, or actual receipt of ALPS drug. The primary outcome of ALPS is survival to hospital discharge; a secondary outcome is functional survival at discharge assessed as a modified Rankin Scale score ≤3.

RESULTS

The principal aim of ALPS is to determine if survival is improved by amiodarone compared with placebo; secondary aim is to determine if survival is improved by lidocaine vs placebo and/or by amiodarone vs lidocaine. Prioritizing comparisons in this manner acknowledges where differences in outcome are most expected based on existing knowledge. Each aim also represents a clinically relevant comparison between treatments that is worth investigating.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from ALPS will provide important information about the choice and value of antiarrhythmic therapies for VF/VT arrest with direct implications for resuscitation guidelines and clinical practice.

Antiarrhythmia drugs for cardiac arrest: a systemic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Antiarrhythmia agents have been used in the treatment of cardiac arrest, and we aimed to review the relevant clinical controlled trials to assess the effects of antiarrhythmics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHODS

We searched databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Clinical controlled trials that addressed the effects of antiarrhythmics (including amiodarone, lidocaine, magnesium, and other new potassium-channel blockers) on the outcomes of cardiac arrest were included. Data were collected independently by two authors. The risk ratio of each outcome was collected, and meta-analysis was used for data synthesis if appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ² test and the I² test.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials and seven observational trials were identified. Amiodarone (relative risk (RR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54 to 1.24), lidocaine (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.93 to 5.52), magnesium (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.24) and nifekalant were not shown to improve the survival to hospital discharge compared with placebo, but amiodarone, lidocaine, and nifekalant were shown to be beneficial to initial resuscitation, assessed by the rate of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital admission, with amiodarone being superior to lidocaine (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.57 to 2.86) and nifekalant (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.31). Bretylium and sotalol were not shown to be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that when administered during resuscitation, antiarrhythmia agents might not improve the survival to hospital discharge, but they might be beneficial to initial resuscitation. This is consistent with the AHA 2010 guidelines for resuscitation and cardiovascular emergency, but more studies with good methodologic quality and large numbers of patients are still needed to make further assessment.

The use of antiarrhythmic drugs for adult cardiac arrest: a systematic review

AIMS

In adult cardiac arrest, antiarrhythmic drugs are frequently utilized in acute management and legions of medical providers have memorized the dosage and timing of administration. However, data supporting their use is limited and is the focus of this comprehensive review.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports.

RESULTS

Of 185 articles found, only 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these, 9 were randomised controlled trials. Nearly all trials solely evaluated Ventricular Tachycardia (VT) and Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), and excluded Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA) and asystole. In VT/VF patients, amiodarone improved survival to hospital admission, but not to hospital discharge when compared to lidocaine in two randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone may be considered for those who have refractory VT/VF, defined as VT/VF not terminated by defibrillation, or VT/VF recurrence in out of hospital cardiac arrest or in-hospital cardiac arrest. There is inadequate evidence to support or refute the use of lidocaine and other antiarrythmic agents in the same settings.

Overcoming barriers to in-hospital cardiac arrest documentation

AIMS

(1) To describe the introduction of standardised cardiac arrest documentation to Auckland City Hospital, highlighting how barriers to using the Utstein template were overcome. (2) To determine the adequacy of documentation of cardiac arrest time intervals.

METHOD

A retrospective audit of cardiac arrest documentation for a 3-year period following the introduction of a standard documentation form.

RESULTS

There was an initial improvement in use of the template (29% (95%CI 22-37%) to 88% (95%CI 82-92%), p<0.001) after identification of barriers and implementation of tailored strategies. Use of the template declined (77%, 95%CI 69-84%, p=0.023) after the key facilitator left the hospital. Time interval documentation ranged from 66% (95%CI 54-77%) for tracheal intubation to 91% (95%CI 80-93%) for first dose of adrenaline (epinephrine).

CONCLUSIONS

Designated 'hands-off' senior clinicians were required for accurate documentation of time intervals. Time interval documentation was sub-optimal and further efforts are required to improve this. Transfer of ownership beyond the key facilitator was integral to sustainability of the process. Future reports of in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes should include baseline information on the adequacy of documentation of time intervals.

A practical guide for clinicians who treat patients with amiodarone: 2007

Amiodarone is commonly used to treat supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in various inpatient and outpatient settings. Over- and under-use of amiodarone is common, and data regarding patterns of use are sparse and largely anecdotal. Because of adverse drug reactions, proper use is essential to deriving optimal benefits from the drug with the least risk. This guide updates an earlier version published in 2000, reviews indications for use of amiodarone and recommends strategies to minimize adverse effects. The recommendations included herein are based on the best available data and the collective experience of the member of the writing committee.

Pharmacotherapy considerations in advanced cardiac life support

Cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death remain major causes of mortality. Early intervention has been facilitated by emergency medical response systems and the development of training programs in basic life support and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS). Despite the implementation of these programs, the likelihood of a meaningful outcome in many life-threatening situations remains poor. Pharmacotherapy plays a role in the management of patients with cardiac arrest, with new guidelines for ACLS available in 2005 providing recommendations for the role of specific drug therapies. Epinephrine continues as a recommended means to facilitate defibrillation in patients with pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation; vasopressin is an alternative. Amiodarone is the primary antiarrhythmic drug that has been shown to be effective for facilitation of defibrillation in patients with pulseless ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and is also used for the management of atrial fibrillation and hemodynamically stable ventricular tachycardia. Epinephrine and atropine are the primary agents used for the management of asystole and pulseless electrical activity. Treatment of electrolyte abnormalities, severe hypotension, pulmonary embolism, acute ischemic stroke, and toxicologic emergencies are important components of ACLS management. Selection of the appropriate drug, dose, and timing and route of administration are among the many challenges faced in this setting. Pharmacists who are properly educated and trained regarding the use of pharmacotherapy for patients requiring ACLS can help maximize the likelihood of positive patient outcomes.