2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.00043.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Defibrillation Effects of Intravenous Nifekalant in Patients with Out‐of‐Hospital Ventricular Fibrillation

Abstract: Nifekalant (NF), a pure K(+) channel blocker developed in Japan, has been reported to be effective in the treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. We studied its efficacy in 18 men and 4 women with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) admitted to our emergency department between August 2001 and March 2004. The number of DC shocks delivered for out-of-hospital VF, serum Na(+) and K(+), arterial blood pH, and base excess were compared in 8 patients treated with NF, 0.3 mg/kg i.v. followed … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…26 Moreover, both sotalol and nifekalant have been reported to decrease the defibrillation threshold, whereas amiodarone may increase it. [27][28][29] The results of this study suggest that in patients in whom VTA is suppressed by nifekalant, sotalol is very likely to be efficacious. Thus, the response of inducible VTA to nifekalant may provide useful information about the clinical efficacy of sotalol treatment.…”
Section: Vta Managementmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…26 Moreover, both sotalol and nifekalant have been reported to decrease the defibrillation threshold, whereas amiodarone may increase it. [27][28][29] The results of this study suggest that in patients in whom VTA is suppressed by nifekalant, sotalol is very likely to be efficacious. Thus, the response of inducible VTA to nifekalant may provide useful information about the clinical efficacy of sotalol treatment.…”
Section: Vta Managementmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…In the case of Igarashi et al ., because no detailed information about study design was found in the text, a high risk of bias was considered for this study [24]. The overall pooled results showed that nifekalant significantly improved initial resuscitation compared with lidocaine (Figure 7), but no significant difference was found in the live discharge between the two groups (χ 2 = 0.59; P = 0.44; I 2 = 0; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.25).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One controlled trial comparing lidocaine with nifekalant showed, with very low certainty, no statistically significant difference in survival to hospital discharge (n=28) or ROSC (n=22). 46 The quality of this evidence was downgraded because of concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness. The risk of bias resulted from concerns about sequence generation and allocation concealment, uncertainties about blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and incomplete reporting of outcomes.…”
Section: Lidocaine Versus Nifekalantmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We identified only the single very small RCT with 30 patients that compared amiodarone with nifekalant 45 and another very small RCT with 28 patients that compared lidocaine with nifekalant. 46 Sotalol is not part of current council guidelines internationally.…”
Section: Bretylium Nifekalant and Sotalolmentioning
confidence: 99%