on behalf of the investigators of the AVID, CASH and CIDS studies Aims Three randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have been reported with what might appear to be different results. The present analysis was performed to obtain the most precise estimate of the efficacy of the ICD, compared to amiodarone, for prolonging survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia. Methods and ResultsIndividual patient data from the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) study, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) were merged into a master database according to a pre-specified protocol. Proportional hazard modelling of individual patient data was used to estimate hazard ratios and to investigate subgroup interactions. Fixed effect metaanalysis techniques were also used to evaluate treatment effects and to assess heterogeneity across studies. The classic fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the estimates of ICD benefit from the three studies were consistent with each other (P heterogeneity=0·306). It also showed a significant reduction in death from any cause with the ICD; with a summary hazard ratio (ICD:amiodarone) of 0·72 (95% confidence interval 0·60, 0·87; P=0·0006). For the outcome of arrhythmic death, the hazard ratio was 0·50 (95% confidence interval 0·37, 0·67; P<0·0001). Survival was extended by a mean of 4·4 months by the ICD over a follow-up period of 6 years. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction c35% derived significantly more benefit from ICD therapy than those with better preserved left ventricular function. Patients treated before the availability of non-thoracotomy ICD implants derived significantly less benefit from ICD therapy than those treated in the nonthoracotomy era. ConclusionResults from the three trials of the ICD vs amiodarone are consistent with each other. There is a 28% reduction in the relative risk of death with the ICD that is due almost entirely to a 50% reduction in arrhythmic death.

improves outcome after cardiac arrest, but prehospital cooling immediately after return of spontaneous circulation may result in better outcomes.OBJECTIVE To determine whether prehospital cooling improves outcomes after resuscitation from cardiac arrest in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) and without VF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized clinical trial that assigned adults with prehospital cardiac arrest to standard care with or without prehospital cooling, accomplished by infusing up to 2 L of 4°C normal saline as soon as possible following return of spontaneous circulation. Adults in King County, Washington, with prehospital cardiac arrest and resuscitated by paramedics were eligible and 1359 patients (583 with VF and 776 without VF) were randomized between December 15, 2007, and December 7, 2012. Patient follow-up was completed by May 1, 2013. Nearly all of the patients resuscitated from VF and admitted to the hospital received hospital cooling regardless of their randomization. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge and neurological status at discharge. RESULTSThe intervention decreased mean core temperature by 1.20°C (95% CI, −1.33°C to −1.07°C) in patients with VF and by 1.30°C (95% CI, −1.40°C to −1.20°C) in patients without VF by hospital arrival and reduced the time to achieve a temperature of less than 34°C by about 1 hour compared with the control group. However, survival to hospital discharge was similar among the intervention and control groups among patients with VF (62.7% [95% CI, 57.0%-68.0%] vs 64.3% [95% CI, 58.6%-69.5%], respectively; P = .69) and among patients without VF (19.2% [95% CI, 15.6%-23.4%] vs 16.3% [95% CI, 12.9%-20.4%], respectively; P = .30). The intervention was also not associated with improved neurological status of full recovery or mild impairment at discharge for either patients with VF (57.5% [95% CI, 51.8%-63.1%] of cases had full recovery or mild impairment vs 61.9% [95% CI, 56.2%-67.2%] of controls; P = .69) or those without VF (14.4% [95% CI, 11.3%-18.2%] of cases vs 13.4% [95% CI,10.4%-17.2%] of controls; P = .30). Overall, the intervention group experienced rearrest in the field more than the control group (26% [95% CI, 22%-29%] vs 21% [95% CI, 18%-24%], respectively; P = .008), as well as increased diuretic use and pulmonary edema on first chest x-ray, which resolved within 24 hours after admission.CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE Although use of prehospital cooling reduced core temperature by hospital arrival and reduced the time to reach a temperature of 34°C, it did not improve survival or neurological status among patients resuscitated from prehospital VF or those without VF.

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965.

No abstract

Elderly patients with a history of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias have a high incidence of non-arrhythmic death. In these patients, the ICD may not afford the same survival advantage over amiodarone that is seen in younger patients. ICD therapy should not be withheld based on age alone; however, physicians should carefully consider the risk of non-arrhythmic death among elderly patients when selecting the appropriate therapy for an individual.

Background-The benefit of a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain.

As part of an evaluation of whether the addition of paramedic services can reduce mortality from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared to previously existing emergency medical technician (EMT) services, factors associated with successful resuscitation were studied. A surveillance system was established to identify cardiac arrest patients receiving emergency care and to collect pertinent information associated with the resuscitation. Outcomes (death, admission, and discharge) were compared in two areas with different types of prehospital emergency care (basic emergency medical technician services vs. paramedic services

One hundred ninety-nine patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest persisted in ventricular fibrillation after the first defibrillation attempt and were then randomly assigned to receive either epinephrine or lidocaine before the next two shocks. The resulting electrocardiographic rhythms and outcomes for each group of patients were compared for each group and also compared with results during the prior 2 years, a period when similar patients primarily received sodium bicarbonate as initial adjunctive therapy. Asystole occurred after defibrillation with threefold frequency after repeated injection of lidocaine (15 of 59, 25%) compared with patients treated with epinephrine (four of 55, 7%) (p<0.02). There was no difference in the proportion of patients resuscitated after treatment with either lidocaine or epinephrine (51 of 106, 48% vs. 50 of 93, 54%) and in the proportion surviving (18, 19% vs. 21, 20%), respectively. Resuscitation (64% vs. 50%, p<0.005) but not survival rates (24% vs. 20%) were higher during the prior 2-year period in which initial adjunctive drug treatment for persistent ventricular fibrillation primarily consisted of a continuous infusion of sodium bicarbonate. The negative effect of lidocaine or epinephrine treatment was explained in part by their influence on delaying subsequent defibrillation attempts. Survival rates were highest (30%) in a subset of patients who received no drug therapy between shocks. We conclude that currently recommended doses of epinephrine and lidocaine are not useful for improving outcome in patients who persist in ventricular fibrillation. Lidocaine administration is commonly associated with asystole, and any possible attribute of initial adjunctive drug therapy is outweighed by its detrimental effect on delaying successive shocks for persistent ventricular fibrillation. (Circulation 1990;82:2027-2034