The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
A correction has been published: N Engl J Med 2002;347(12):955.

Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 346:884-890 March 21, 2002 Number 12
NextNext

Amiodarone as Compared with Lidocaine for Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation
Paul Dorian, M.D., Dan Cass, M.D., Brian Schwartz, M.D., Richard Cooper, M.D., Robert Gelaznikas, B.Sc., and Aiala Barr, Ph.D.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-PowerPoint Slide Set

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Lidocaine has been the initial antiarrhythmic drug treatment recommended for patients with ventricular fibrillation that is resistant to conversion by defibrillator shocks. We performed a randomized trial comparing intravenous lidocaine with intravenous amiodarone as an adjunct to defibrillation in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods Patients were enrolled if they had out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation resistant to three shocks, intravenous epinephrine, and a further shock; or if they had recurrent ventricular fibrillation after initially successful defibrillation. They were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive intravenous amiodarone plus lidocaine placebo or intravenous lidocaine plus amiodarone placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who survived to be admitted to the hospital.

Results In total, 347 patients (mean [±SD] age, 67±14 years) were enrolled. The mean interval between the time at which paramedics were dispatched to the scene of the cardiac arrest and the time of their arrival was 7±3 minutes, and the mean interval from dispatch to drug administration was 25±8 minutes. After treatment with amiodarone, 22.8 percent of 180 patients survived to hospital admission, as compared with 12.0 percent of 167 patients treated with lidocaine (P=0.009; odds ratio, 2.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.21 to 3.83). Among patients for whom the time from dispatch to the administration of the drug was equal to or less than the median time (24 minutes), 27.7 percent of those given amiodarone and 15.3 percent of those given lidocaine survived to hospital admission (P=0.05).

Conclusions As compared with lidocaine, amiodarone leads to substantially higher rates of survival to hospital admission in patients with shock-resistant out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation.


Source Information

From the Departments of Medicine and Emergency Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital (P.D., D.C., R.G., A.B.); the Division of Prehospital Care, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre (B.S.); and the Department of Anesthesia, University Health Network (R.C.) — all in Toronto.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Dorian at St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St., Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada, or at dorianp{at}smh.toronto.on.ca.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Amiodarone versus Lidocaine for Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation
Silfvast T., Pettilä V., Ballew K. A., Philbrick J. T., Tomkiewicz W., Meininghaus D. G., Langes K., Spehn J., Dorian P., Schwartz B., Cooper R.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2002; 347:368-370, Aug 1, 2002. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.