RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Alternative Defibrillation Strategies for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.09.26.23296188
DO 10.1101/2023.09.26.23296188
A1 Perna, Benedetta
A1 Guarino, Matteo
A1 De Fazio, Roberto
A1 Esposito, Ludovica
A1 Portoraro, Andrea
A1 Rossin, Federica
A1 Remelli, Francesca
A1 Trevisan, Caterina
A1 Raparelli, Valeria
A1 Marasco, Giovanni
A1 Barbara, Giovanni
A1 Petrini, Stefano
A1 Vason, Milo
A1 Spampinato, Michele Domenico
A1 Giorgio, Roberto De
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/29/2023.09.26.23296188.abstract
AB Background Cardiac arrest with refractory ventricular fibrillation (rVF) represents a dramatic medical emergency. Despite recent advances, its treatment is challenging and burdened by limited evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at establishing whether alternative defibrillation strategies (ADS), i.e. double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) or vector-change defibrillation (VCD), improve survival among patients with rVF compared to standard defibrillation (SD).Methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective studies were included if: (1) compared ADS with SD in rVF; (2) conducted on patients ≥ 18 years old; (3) reported survival to hospital admission. English-language papers from MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization, EMBASE and CINAHL, published from inception to December 2022, were retrieved. The risk of bias was assessed following the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials, as appropriate. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled Odds Ratio (pOR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) of ADS and survival to hospital admission. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to compare SD with each type of ADS. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022379049).Results Eight studies (2 RCTs, 5 retrospective and 1 case-control study) were retrieved for qualitative and quantitative analyses. The study population included 1405 patients (ADS = 493 vs. SD = 912) with a pooled mean age of 61.9 ± 1.1 years; among them, 277 (19.7%) were female. The random-effect meta-analysis did not show differences in survival to hospital admission among ADS vs. SD (pOR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.62-2.01). The subgroup analysis confirmed that neither DSED (pOR = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.56-2.58) nor VCD (pOR = 1.66, 95%CI: 0.10-27.02) were associated with improved survival to hospital admission. Main limitations were: i) few numbers of studies included with small sample size; and ii) female under-representation.Conclusion The present manuscript did not show any difference on survival to hospital admission between the considered defibrillation strategies in rVF. This result highlights the need for further ad hoc clinical trials assessing the actual role of ADS.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementRDG was supported by FAR (Fondo Ateneo Ricerca) and FIR (Fondo Incentivazione Ricerca) funds from the University of Ferrara, Italy.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022379049). This research does not directly involve patients; hence, an ethical approval was deemed unnecessary.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data and statistical analyses codes are available upon request to the corresponding author.ADSalternative defibrillation strategiesCAcardiac arrestDSEDdouble sequential external defibrillationEMSemergency medical serviceERCEuropean Resuscitation CouncilIHCAin-hospital cardiac arrestMOOSEmeta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiologyOHCAout-of-hospital cardiac arrestNIHNational Institutes of HealthPEApulseless electric activityPRISMApreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysespVTpulseless ventricular tachycardiaRCTrandomized controlled trialRoB-2Risk of Bias-2ROSCreturn of spontaneous circulationrVFrefractory ventricular fibrillationSDstandard defibrillationSGBAsex- and gender-based analysisVCDvector-change defibrillationVFventricular fibrillation.