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

DSpace/Manakin Repository

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

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Meta-analysis of the efficacies of amiodarone and nifekalant in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia
Author: Sato, Shiho; Zamami, Yoshito; Imai, Toru; Tanaka, Satoshi; Koyama, Toshihiro; Niimura, Takahiro; Chuma, Masayuki; Koga, Tadashi; Takechi, Kenshi; Kurata, Yasuko; Kondo, Yutaka; Izawa-Ishizawa, Yuki; Sendo, Toshiaki; Nakura, Hironori; Ishizawa, Keisuke

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Sato, 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.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: 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.
Published Version: doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13073-0
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627292/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34492312
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters