» Articles » PMID: 35602465

Effectiveness of Alternative Shock Strategies for Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review

Overview
Journal Resusc Plus
Date 2022 May 23
PMID 35602465
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To determine the optimal first-shock energy level for biphasic defibrillation and whether fixed or escalating protocols for subsequent shocks are most effective.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, the Web of Science and national and international trial registry databases for papers published from database inception to January 2022. We reviewed reference lists of key papers to identify additional references. The population included adults sustaining non traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest subject to attempted defibrillation. Studies of internal or monophasic defibrillation and studies other than randomised controlled trials or prospective cohorts were excluded. Two reviewers assessed study relevance. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using the ROBINS-I tool, were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data underwent intention-to-treat analysis.

Results: We identified no studies evaluating first shock energy. Only one study ( = 738) comparing fixed versus escalating energy met eligibility criteria: a prospective cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial of manual versus mechanical CPR. High fixed (360 J) energy was compared with an escalating (200-200/300-360 J) strategy. Researchers found 27.5% (70/255) of patients in the escalating energy group and 27.61% (132/478) in the fixed high energy group survived to hospital discharge (unadjusted risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73, 1.23). Results were of very low certainty as the study was at serious risk of bias.

Conclusion: This systematic review did not identify an optimal first-shock energy for biphasic defibrillation. We identified no survival advantage at 30 days when comparing 360 J fixed with 200 J escalating strategy.

Citing Articles

Defibrillation trials: POSED a challenge.

Nehme Z, Bray J Resusc Plus. 2024; 17:100586.

PMID: 38419830 PMC: 10900113. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100586.


Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility study of Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED).

Pocock H, Deakin C, Lall R, Michelet F, Contreras A, Ainsworth-Smith M Resusc Plus. 2022; 12:100310.

PMID: 36238581 PMC: 9550652. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100310.

References
1.
Rodriguez-Nunez A, Lopez-Herce J, Garcia C, Dominguez P, Carrillo A, Bellon J . Pediatric defibrillation after cardiac arrest: initial response and outcome. Crit Care. 2006; 10(4):R113. PMC: 1751019. DOI: 10.1186/cc5005. View

2.
Haywood K, Whitehead L, Nadkarni V, Achana F, Beesems S, Bottiger B . COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in Adults: An Advisory Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Circulation. 2018; 137(22):e783-e801. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000562. View

3.
Lavignasse D, Lemoine S, Menetre S, Didon J, Jost D, Jouven X . Improved survival to hospital discharge in paediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest using 2 Joules/kilogram as first defibrillation dose for initial pulseless ventricular arrhythmia. Resuscitation. 2020; 158:291-292. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.042. View

4.
Gutgesell H, Tacker W, Geddes L, Davis S, Lie J, McNamara D . Energy dose for ventricular defibrillation of children. Pediatrics. 1976; 58(6):898-901. View

5.
Brown P, Brunnhuber K, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, Clarke M, Fenton M . How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ. 2006; 333(7572):804-6. PMC: 1602035. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38987.492014.94. View