Meta-analysis of the efficacies of amiodarone and nifekalant in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia
Ishizawa, KeisukeNote: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationSato, S., Y. Zamami, T. Imai, S. Tanaka, T. Koyama, T. Niimura, M. Chuma, et al. 2017. “Meta-analysis of the efficacies of amiodarone and nifekalant in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia.” Scientific Reports 7 (1): 12683. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13073-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13073-0.
AbstractAmiodarone (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.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34492312
- HMS Scholarly Articles