TY - JOUR
T1 - Meta-analysis of the efficacies of amiodarone and nifekalant in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia
AU - Sato, Shiho
AU - Zamami, Yoshito
AU - Imai, Toru
AU - Tanaka, Satoshi
AU - Koyama, Toshihiro
AU - Niimura, Takahiro
AU - Chuma, Masayuki
AU - Koga, Tadashi
AU - Takechi, Kenshi
AU - Kurata, Yasuko
AU - Kondo, Yutaka
AU - Izawa-Ishizawa, Yuki
AU - Sendo, Toshiaki
AU - Nakura, Hironori
AU - Ishizawa, Keisuke
N1 - Funding Information:
This publication was supported by KAKENHI (15K21178).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author(s).
PY - 2017/12/1
Y1 - 2017/12/1
N2 - Amiodarone (AMD) and nifekalant (NIF) are used in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia; however, only few studies have been conducted on their efficacies. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted. Relevant sources were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi. The outcomes were short-term and long-term survival in patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Thirty-three studies were analysed. The results showed that, compared to the control treatment, AMD did not improve short-term survival (odds ratio (OR): 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.71) or long-term survival (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.63-1.57). However, compared to the control treatment, NIF significantly improved short-term survival (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 2.21-4.72) and long-term survival (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36-2.59). No significant difference was observed in short-term survival (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.15) or long-term survival (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.67-2.31) between AMD-A nd NIF-treated patients. The results suggest that NIF is beneficial for short-term and long-term survival in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia; however, the efficacy of AMD in either outcome is not clear.
AB - Amiodarone (AMD) and nifekalant (NIF) are used in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia; however, only few studies have been conducted on their efficacies. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted. Relevant sources were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi. The outcomes were short-term and long-term survival in patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Thirty-three studies were analysed. The results showed that, compared to the control treatment, AMD did not improve short-term survival (odds ratio (OR): 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.71) or long-term survival (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.63-1.57). However, compared to the control treatment, NIF significantly improved short-term survival (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 2.21-4.72) and long-term survival (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.36-2.59). No significant difference was observed in short-term survival (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.15) or long-term survival (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.67-2.31) between AMD-A nd NIF-treated patients. The results suggest that NIF is beneficial for short-term and long-term survival in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia; however, the efficacy of AMD in either outcome is not clear.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030715238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030715238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41598-017-13073-0
DO - 10.1038/s41598-017-13073-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 28978927
AN - SCOPUS:85030715238
SN - 2045-2322
VL - 7
JO - Scientific Reports
JF - Scientific Reports
IS - 1
M1 - 12683
ER -