Sato, ShihoZamami, YoshitoImai, ToruTanaka, SatoshiKoyama, ToshihiroNiimura, TakahiroChuma, MasayukiKoga, TadashiTakechi, KenshiKurata, YasukoKondo, YutakaIzawa-Ishizawa, YukiSendo, ToshiakiNakura, HironoriIshizawa, Keisuke2017-12-062017Sato, 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.http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34492312Amiodarone (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.en-USJournal Article2017-12-0610.1038/s41598-017-13073-0