Why the study?
Does ZP123 improve defibrillation success and return of spontaneous circulation in a swine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation?
Does ZP123 improve defibrillation success and return of spontaneous circulation in a swine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation?
In a swine model of prolonged VF, ZP123 improved defibrillation success but did not increase the rate of return of spontaneous circulation, possibly due to a reduction in VF amplitude.
May facilitate defibrillation without improving ROSC in swine VF; leaves open translation to clinical resuscitation.
OBJECTIVES: It was the aim of this study to investigate the effect of ZP123 on prolonged ventricular fibrillation (VF) in swine. METHODS: VF was electrically induced in 20 pigs. The animals randomly received either ZP123 or saline control infusion before VF. After 8 min of untreated VF, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and biphasic defibrillation shocks were applied. VF mean frequency (VF(mf)) and mean amplitude (VF(ma)), hemodynamics, outcome of defibrillation and the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, VF(mf) was higher but VF(ma) lower during the 8 min of VF in the drug group (11.8 ± 2.1 vs. 10.4 ± 2.0 Hz and 0.24 ± 0.10 vs. 0.31 ± 0.16 mV, respectively; p < 0.05). Hemodynamic variables in the 2 groups were comparable (p > 0.05). The defibrillation threshold was lower and the rate of successful defibrillation was higher in the drug group compared with the control group (92.2 ± 26.4 vs. 133.3 ± 28.9 J and 90 vs. 30%, respectively; p < 0.05). The rate of ROSC was not different between the 2 groups (40 vs. 30%; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In prolonged VF, ZP123 could decrease the defibrillation threshold and improve the rate of successful defibrillation. However, it could not improve the rate of ROSC - which may be due to its side effect of decreasing VF(ma).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: