Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2023 Sep;30(9):906-917. doi: 10.1111/acem.14716. Epub 2023 Apr 5.
Amiodarone and lidocaine have not been shown to have a clear survival benefit compared to placebo for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, randomized trials may have been impacted by delayed administration of the study drugs. We sought to evaluate how timing from emergency medical services (EMS) arrival on scene to drug administration affects the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine compared to placebo.
This is a secondary analysis of the 10-site, 55-EMS-agency double-blind randomized controlled amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in OHCA study. We included patients with initial shockable rhythms who received the study drugs of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo before achieving return of spontaneous circulation. We performed logistic regression analyses evaluating survival to hospital discharge and secondary outcomes of survival to admission and functional survival (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 3). We evaluated the samples stratified by early (<8 min) and late administration groups (≥8 min). We compared outcomes for amiodarone and lidocaine compared to placebo and adjust for potential confounders.
There were 2802 patients meeting inclusion criteria, with 879 (31.4%) in the early (<8 min) and 1923 (68.6%) in the late (≥8 min) groups. In the early group, patients receiving amiodarone, compared to placebo, had significantly higher survival to admission (62.0% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.001; adjusted OR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.24-2.50]), survival to discharge (37.1% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.021; 1.56 [1.07-2.29]), and functional survival (31.6% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.029; 1.55 [1.04-2.32]). There were no significant differences with early lidocaine compared to early placebo (p > 0.05). Patients in the late group who received amiodarone or lidocaine had no significant differences in outcomes at discharge compared to placebo (p > 0.05).
The early administration of amiodarone, particularly within 8 min, is associated with greater survival to admission, survival to discharge, and functional survival compared to placebo in patients with an initial shockable rhythm.
胺碘酮和利多卡因与安慰剂相比,并未显示出对院外心脏骤停(OHCA)有明确的生存获益。然而,随机试验可能受到研究药物延迟给药的影响。我们旨在评估从紧急医疗服务(EMS)到达现场到给药的时间如何影响胺碘酮和利多卡因与安慰剂相比的疗效。
这是一项 10 个地点、55 个 EMS 机构的双盲随机对照胺碘酮、利多卡因或安慰剂治疗 OHCA 研究的二次分析。我们纳入了初始可除颤节律的患者,这些患者在自主循环恢复之前接受了胺碘酮、利多卡因或安慰剂的研究药物治疗。我们进行了逻辑回归分析,评估了至出院的生存率和次要结局,包括入院生存率和功能生存率(改良 Rankin 量表评分≤3)。我们按早期(<8 分钟)和晚期(≥8 分钟)给药组对样本进行分层评估。我们比较了胺碘酮和利多卡因与安慰剂的结果,并对潜在的混杂因素进行了调整。
共有 2802 例符合纳入标准的患者,其中 879 例(31.4%)为早期(<8 分钟),1923 例(68.6%)为晚期(≥8 分钟)。在早期组中,与安慰剂相比,接受胺碘酮治疗的患者入院生存率显著提高(62.0% vs. 48.5%,p=0.001;调整后的 OR [95%CI] 1.76 [1.24-2.50])、出院生存率(37.1% vs. 28.0%,p=0.021;1.56 [1.07-2.29])和功能生存率(31.6% vs. 23.3%,p=0.029;1.55 [1.04-2.32])。与早期安慰剂相比,早期利多卡因无显著差异(p>0.05)。晚期组中接受胺碘酮或利多卡因的患者与安慰剂相比,出院时的结局无显著差异(p>0.05)。
在初始可除颤节律的患者中,胺碘酮的早期给药,特别是在 8 分钟内,与安慰剂相比,与入院生存率、出院生存率和功能生存率的提高相关。