Key result
In a swine model of ventricular fibrillation, AMSA-driven shocks and epinephrine improved survival after ROSC compared to a guidelines-driven protocol (100% vs 50%; P=0.019).
Why the study?
It was hypothesized that AMSA could guide epinephrine delivery in addition to shocks, expecting further outcome improvement from reduced electrical and adrenergic burdens.
Does AMSA-guided delivery of electrical shocks and epinephrine improve survival in a swine model of ventricular fibrillation?
Does AMSA-guided delivery of electrical shocks and epinephrine improve survival in a swine model of ventricular fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 50%
p-value: p=0.019
Guiding electrical shocks and epinephrine delivery using ventricular fibrillation amplitude spectral area reduces myocardial burden and improves survival in a swine model.
Background We previously reported that resuscitation delivering electrical shocks guided by real‐time ventricular fibrillation amplitude spectral area (AMSA) enabled return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) with fewer shocks, resulting in less myocardial dysfunction. We now hypothesized that AMSA could also guide delivery of epinephrine, expecting further outcome improvement consequent to less electrical and adrenergic burdens. Methods and Results A swine model of ventricular fibrillation was used to compare after 10 minutes of untreated ventricular fibrillation a guidelines‐driven (n=8) resuscitation protocol, delivering shocks every 2 minutes and epinephrine every 4 minutes, with an AMSA‐driven shocks (n=8) protocol, delivering epinephrine every 4 minutes, and with an AMSA‐driven shocks and epinephrine (ADSE; n=8) protocol. For guidelines‐driven, AMSA‐driven shocks, and ADSE protocols, the time to ROSC (mean±SD) was 569±164, 410±111, and 400±80 seconds ( P =0.045); the number of shocks (mean±SD) was 5±2, 3±1, and 3±2 ( P =0.024) with ADSE fewer than guidelines‐driven ( P =0.03); and the doses of epinephrine (median [interquartile range]) were 2.0 (1.3–3.0), 1.0 (1.0–2.8), and 1.0 (0.3–3.0) ( P =0.419). The ROSC rate was similar, yet survival after ROSC favored AMSA‐driven protocols (guidelines‐driven, 3/6; AMSA‐driven shocks, 6/6; and ADSE, 7/7; P =0.019 by log‐rank test). Left ventricular function and survival after ROSC correlated inversely with electrical burden (ie, cumulative unsuccessful shocks, J/kg; P =0.020 and P =0.046) and adrenergic burden (ie, total epinephrine doses, mg/kg; P =0.042 and P =0.002). Conclusions Despite similar ROSC rates achieved with all 3 protocols, AMSA‐driven shocks and ADSE resulted in less postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction and better survival, attributed to attaining ROSC with less electrical and adrenergic myocardial burdens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study studied Ventricular fibrillation (n=24). AMSA-driven shocks and epinephrine (ADSE) vs. Guidelines-driven resuscitation protocol was evaluated on Survival after ROSC (p=0.019). In a swine model of ventricular fibrillation, AMSA-driven shocks and epinephrine improved survival after ROSC compared to a guidelines-driven protocol (100% vs 50%; P=0.019).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: