These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Defibrillation strategies for patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Author: Yu J, Yu Y, Liang H, Zhang Y, Yuan D, Sun T, Li Y, Gao Y.
    Journal: Am J Emerg Med; 2024 Oct; 84():149-157. PubMed ID: 39127020.
    Abstract:
    AIM: The aim of this study was to summarize the existing evidence about the effectiveness of double defibrillation (DD) in comparison to standard defibrillation for patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation (RVF). DD encompasses double "sequential" external defibrillation (DSeq-D) and double "simultaneous" defibrillation (DSim-D), with the study also shedding light on the respective effects of DSeq-D and DSim-D. METHODS: Investigators systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from their inception until June 06, 2024. The rate of survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome, while the incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), termination of ventricular fibrillation (VF), survival to hospital admission and good neurologic outcome were secondary outcomes. Relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed using I square value. RESULTS: A total of 6 trials, comprising 1360 patients, were included. One was an RCT, and five were observational cohort studies. The RCT showed that, compared to standard defibrillation, DSeq-D was associated with higher incidences of survival to hospital discharge, termination of VF, ROSC and good neurologic outcome. However, the pooled results of cohort studies found no benefit of DD over standard defibrillation in survival to hospital discharge (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.78), nor in secondary outcomes. Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested DSim-D was linked with lower ROSC rate compared to standard defibrillation (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86), while there was no significance between DSeq-D and standard defibrillation (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of DSeq-D in survival to hospital discharge for RVF patients was found in the RCT, but not in cohort studies. Additionally, DSim-D should be applied with greater caution for RVF patients. Further validation is needed through larger-scale and higher-quality trials. TRIAL REGISTRY: INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY202340015; URL: https://inplasy.com/.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]