TY - JOUR
T1 - Amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
AU - Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators
AU - Kudenchuk, P. J.
AU - Brown, S. P.
AU - Daya, M.
AU - Rea, T.
AU - Nichol, G.
AU - Morrison, L. J.
AU - Leroux, B.
AU - Vaillancourt, C.
AU - Wittwer, L.
AU - Callaway, C. W.
AU - Christenson, J.
AU - Egan, D.
AU - Ornato, J. P.
AU - Weisfeldt, M. L.
AU - Stiell, I. G.
AU - Idris, A. H.
AU - Aufderheide, T. P.
AU - Dunford, J. V.
AU - Colella, M. R.
AU - Vilke, G. M.
AU - Brienza, A. M.
AU - Desvigne-Nickens, P.
AU - Gray, P. C.
AU - Gray, R.
AU - Seals, N.
AU - Straight, R.
AU - Dorian, P.
N1 - Funding Information:
The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was supported by the NHLBI through a series of cooperative agreements with nine regional clinical centers (spanning 10 North American communities) and one data coordinating center (5U01 HL077863, with the University of Washington Data Coordinating Center; HL077866, with the Medical College of Wisconsin; HL077867, with the University of Washington; HL077871, with the University of Pittsburgh; HL077872, with St. Michael's Hospital; HL077873, with Oregon Health and Science University; HL077881, with the University of Alabama at Birmingham; HL077885, with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; HL077887, with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; and HL077908, with the University of California San Diego). Additional funding was provided by U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health, Defence Research and Development Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the American Heart Association. Two authors are employees of the NHLBI; they helped in the design and conduct of the trial, data analysis and interpretation, and revision of the manuscript. The NHLBI, as the trial funder, also appointed members of the protocol review committee of the ROC and members of the data and safety monitoring board of this trial but otherwise played no role in its conduct.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2016 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/5/5
Y1 - 2016/5/5
N2 - Background: Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-ofhospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock. Results: In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P = 0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P = 0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P = 0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P = 0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo. Conclusions: Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.
AB - Background: Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-ofhospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock. Results: In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P = 0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P = 0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P = 0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P = 0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo. Conclusions: Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84968813736&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84968813736&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa1514204
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa1514204
M3 - Article
C2 - 27043165
AN - SCOPUS:84968813736
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 374
SP - 1711
EP - 1722
JO - New England Journal of Medicine
JF - New England Journal of Medicine
IS - 18
ER -