Comparing intravenous amiodarone or lidocaine, or both, outcomes for inpatients with pulseless ventricular arrhythmias*

Objective: To compare survival rates of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest due to pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation treated with lidocaine, amiodarone, or amiodarone plus lidocaine. Design: Multicenter retrospective medical record review. Setting: Three academic medical centers in the United States. Patients: Hospitalized adult patients who received amiodarone, lidocaine, or a combination for pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation between August 1, 2000, and July 31, 2002. Measurements and Main Results: Data were collected according to the Utstein style. In-hospital proportion of patients living at 24 hrs and discharge were analyzed using chi-square analysis. Of the 605 patient medical records reviewed, 194 met criteria for inclusion (n = 79 for lidocaine, n = 74 for amiodarone, n = 41 for combination). Available data showed no difference in proportion of patients alive 24 hrs post–cardiac arrest (p = .39). Cox regression analysis indicated a decreased likelihood of survival in patients with pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation as an initial rhythm as compared with those who presented with bradycardia followed by pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation and in those patients who received amiodarone as compared with lidocaine. However, only 14 patients (25%) in the amiodarone group received the recommended initial 300-mg intravenous bolus, and amiodarone was administered an average of 8 mins later in the code compared with lidocaine (p < .001). Conclusions: These results generate the hypothesis that inpatients with cardiac arrest may have different benefits from lidocaine and amiodarone than previously demonstrated. Inadequate dosing and later administration of amiodarone in the code were two confounding factors in this study. Prospective studies evaluating these agents are warranted. LEARNING OBJECTIVES On completion of this article, the reader should be able to: Describe the recommended treatment of pulseless ventricular arrhythmias as outlined in the 2000 revision of the American Heart Association (AHA) Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (“guidelines”). Compare the benefits of drugs used for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. Use this information in a clinical setting. Dr. Rea is on the speakers bureau of Sancfi Aventis. Dr. Seybert was/is the recipient of direct grant/research funds from Abbott and KOS and is/was on the speakers bureau of The Medicine Company, Millenium, Merck, and Wyeth. All of the remaining authors have disclosed that they have no financial relationships with or interests in any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity. Lippincott CME Institute, Inc., has identified and resolved all faculty conflicts of interest regarding this educational activity. Visit the Critical Care Medicine Web site (www.ccmjournal.org) for information on obtaining continuing medical education credit.