4.6 Article

Efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for preventing ventricular fibrillation after aortic cross-clamp release in open heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 1113-1122

出版社

ZHEJIANG UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B1700229

关键词

Amiodarone; Lidocaine; Ventricular fibrillation; Open heart surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relative preventative efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for ventricular fibrillation (VF) after release of an aortic cross-clamp (ACC) during open heart surgery has not been determined. This meta-analysis was designed to systematically evaluate the influence of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo on the incidence of VF after ACC. Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the VF-preventative effects of amiodarone with lidocaine, or amiodarone or lidocaine with placebo were included. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant RCTs. Fixed or randomized effect models were applied according to the heterogeneity of the data from the selected studies. We included eight RCTs in the analysis. Pooled results suggested that the preventative effects of amiodarone and lidocaine were comparable (relative risk (RR)=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70 to 1.80, P=0.63), but both were superior to the placebo (amiodarone, RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.00, P=0.05; lidocaine, RR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.88, P=0.006). The percentage of patients requiring electric defibrillation counter shocks (DCSs) did not differ significantly among patients administered amiodarone (RR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.04 to 1.19, P=0.08), lidocaine (RR=2.44, 95% CI: 0.13 to 44.02, P=0.55), or the placebo (RR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.25, P=0.16). Amiodarone and lidocaine are comparably effective in preventing VF after ACC, but the percentage of patients who subsequently require DCSs does not differ among those administered amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据