Department of Pharmacy, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chest. 2023 May;163(5):1109-1119. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.10.024. Epub 2022 Nov 2.
American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines support the use of either amiodarone or lidocaine for cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) based on studies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Studies comparing amiodarone and lidocaine in adult populations with in-hospital VT/VF arrest are lacking.
Does treatment with amiodarone vs lidocaine therapy have differential associations with outcomes among adult patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest from VT/VF?
This retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving amiodarone or lidocaine for VT/VF in-hospital cardiac arrest refractory to CPR and defibrillation between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2014, was conducted within American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) participating hospitals. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were 24 h survival, survival to hospital discharge, and favorable neurologic outcome.
Among 14,630 patients with in-hospital VT/VF arrest, 68.7% (n = 10,058) were treated with amiodarone and 31.3% (n = 4,572) with lidocaine. When all covariates were statistically controlled, compared with amiodarone, lidocaine was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of the following: (1) ROSC (adjusted OR [AOR], 1.15, P = .01; average marginal effect [AME], 2.3; 95% CI, 0.5 to 4.2); (2) 24 h survival (AOR, 1.16; P = 004; AME, 3.0; 95% CI, 0.9 to 5.1); (3) survival to discharge (AOR, 1.19; P < .001; AME, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.2); and (4) favorable neurologic outcome at hospital discharge (AOR, 1.18; P < .001; AME, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.9). Results using propensity score methods were similar to those from multivariable logistic regression analyses.
Compared with amiodarone, lidocaine therapy among adult patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest from VT/VF was associated with statistically significantly higher rates of ROSC, 24 h survival, survival to hospital discharge, and favorable neurologic outcome.
美国心脏协会高级心脏生命支持(ACLS)指南支持在院外心脏骤停的情况下,根据研究结果,使用胺碘酮或利多卡因治疗由室性心动过速或心室颤动(VT/VF)引起的心脏骤停。在院内 VT/VF 骤停的成年人群中,缺乏比较胺碘酮和利多卡因的研究。
在接受心肺复苏(CPR)和除颤治疗无效的院内 VT/VF 心脏骤停的成年患者中,使用胺碘酮与利多卡因治疗是否与结局有差异?
这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日期间,在美国心脏协会 Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation(GWTG-R)参与医院中,接受胺碘酮或利多卡因治疗的 VT/VF 院内心脏骤停且对 CPR 和除颤无反应的成年患者。主要结局为自主循环恢复(ROSC)。次要结局为 24 小时生存率、出院生存率和良好的神经功能结局。
在 14630 例院内 VT/VF 骤停患者中,68.7%(n=10058)接受了胺碘酮治疗,31.3%(n=4572)接受了利多卡因治疗。当所有协变量都进行了统计学控制后,与胺碘酮相比,利多卡因与以下情况的发生几率显著更高:(1)ROSC(校正比值比[OR],1.15,P=0.01;平均边缘效应[AME],2.3;95%CI,0.5 至 4.2);(2)24 小时生存率(OR,1.16;P=0.04;AME,3.0;95%CI,0.9 至 5.1);(3)出院生存率(OR,1.19;P<0.001;AME,3.3;95%CI,1.5 至 5.2);(4)出院时的良好神经功能结局(OR,1.18;P<0.001;AME,3.1;95%CI,1.3 至 4.9)。使用倾向评分方法的结果与多变量逻辑回归分析的结果相似。
与胺碘酮相比,在院内 VT/VF 骤停的成年患者中,使用利多卡因治疗与 ROSC、24 小时生存率、出院生存率和良好的神经功能结局的发生率显著更高有关。