Do antiarrhythmic drugs benefit patients with shockable cardiac arrest?

BEEM Bottom Line

Why is this study important?

Guidelines suggest that antiarrhythmic agents be considered for pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (pVT/VF) unresponsive to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defibrillation, and vasopressor therapy.[1] Amiodarone and lidocaine have been associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and increased survival to hospital admission but neither has been shown to contribute to a higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome.[2] This is the most recent summary of evidence on the effectiveness of antiarrhythmics for shockable cardiac arrest in adults and children.

Which, if any, threats to validity are most likely to have an impact on the results and how?

Thank you for your interest in the BEEM Journal!

To read the rest of this article or to access the entire collection of BEEM Critical Appraisals, please purchase a subscription at the link below.

If you would like a pre-view, click here to view some sample articles

Premium Content Available Through Subscription

BEEM is a knowledge translation project which aims to extract the most recent, EM relevant, and valid evidence from the volumes of available medical research and deliver it to EM practitioners in an easily consumable format to help guide their clinical practice. This valuable distilled information provided by BEEM is available through BEEM's accredited CME courses or through our online journal.

A BEEM Journal Subscription will provide you with unlimited access to our entire collection of Critical Appraisals for 1 year.