Key result
Double simultaneous defibrillation showed a trend toward higher survival to hospital discharge compared to conventional defibrillation (41.2% vs 14.3%, p=0.078) in refractory shockable rhythms.
Why the study?
Treatments for refractory shockable rhythms after defibrillation and medical treatment are not definite, and outcomes remain poor.
Does double simultaneous defibrillation improve survival to hospital discharge in patients with refractory shockable rhythms?
Cohort (n=38)
Does double simultaneous defibrillation improve survival to hospital discharge in patients with refractory shockable rhythms?
Absolute Event Rate: 41.2% vs 14.3%
p-value: p=0.078
Double simultaneous defibrillation significantly increased survival to hospital admission in patients with refractory shockable rhythms, with a trend toward improved survival to discharge.
Introduction. Refractory shockable rhythm has a high mortality rate and poor neurological outcome. Treatments for refractory shockable rhythm presenting after defibrillation and medical treatment are not definite. We conducted research on the application of double simultaneous defibrillation (DSiD) for refractory shockable rhythms. Methods. This is a retrospective pilot study performed using medical records from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017. The prephase was from January to December 2016. The post-phase was from January to December 2017. During the prephase, we conducted conventional defibrillation with one defibrillator, and during the post-phase, we conducted DSiD using two defibrillators. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included survival to hospital admission and good neurological outcome at 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher’s exact test. Data were regarded statistically significant when p<0.05 . Result. A total of 38 patients were included. Twenty-one patients underwent conventional defibrillation, and 17 underwent DSiD. The DSiD group had a higher survival to admission rate (14/17 (82.4%) vs. 6/21 (28.6%), p=0.001 ) and showed a trend for higher survival to discharge (7/17 (41.2%) vs. 3/21 (14.3%), p=0.078 ). Good neurological outcome at 12 months of the DSiD group was higher than that of the conventional defibrillation group, but the difference was not statistically significant (5/17 (29.4%) vs 2/21 (9.5%), p=0.207 ). Conclusion. In patients with refractory shockable rhythms, DSiD has increased survival to hospital admission and a trend of increased survival to hospital discharge. However, DSiD did not improve neurological outcome at 12 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Refractory shockable rhythms (n=38). Double simultaneous defibrillation (DSiD) vs. Conventional defibrillation was evaluated on Survival to hospital discharge (p=0.078). Double simultaneous defibrillation showed a trend toward higher survival to hospital discharge compared to conventional defibrillation (41.2% vs 14.3%, p=0.078) in refractory shockable rhythms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: