Outcomes associated with amiodarone and lidocaine in the treatment of in-hospital pediatric cardiac arrest with pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation

Valdés, Santiago O.; Donoghue, Aaron; Hoyme, Derek B.; Hammond, Rachel; Berg, Marc D.; Berg, Robert A.; Samson, Ricardo A.

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.12.008

Cited by 72 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the important outcome of ROSC, there was very-lowquality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, and possible publication bias) from 1 observational cohort study of pediatric IHCA 62 showing improved ROSC associated with lidocaine use when compared with amiodarone use (50.9% [87/171], ROSC in the amiodarone group and 62.4% [184/295] in the lidocaine group; P=0.002). Use of lidocaine, compared with no lidocaine use, was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of ROSC (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.36-3).…”

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Part 6: Pediatric Basic Life Support and Pediatric Advanced Life Support

Caen¹,

Maconochie²,

Aickin³

et al. 2015

Circulation

Self Cite

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Pediatric Task Force reviewed all questions submitted by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) member councils in 2010, reviewed all council training materials and resuscitation guidelines and algorithms, and conferred on recent areas of interest and controversy. We identified a few areas where there were key differences in council-specific guidelines based on historical recommendations, such as the A-B-C (Airway, Breathing, Circulation) versus C-A-B (Circulation, Airway, Breathing) sequence of provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), initial back blows versus abdominal thrusts for foreign-body airway obstruction, an upper limit for recommended chest compression rate, and initial defibrillation dose for shockable rhythms (2 versus 4 J/kg). We produced a working list of prioritized questions and topics, which was adjusted with the advent of new research evidence. This led to a prioritized palate of 21 PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions for ILCOR task force focus.The 2015 process was supported by information specialists who performed in-depth systematic searches, liaising with pediatric content experts so that the most appropriate terms and outcomes and the most relevant publications were identified. Relevant adult literature was considered (extrapolated) in those PICO questions that overlapped with other task forces, or when there were insufficient pediatric data. In rare circumstances (in the absence of sufficient human data), appropriate animal studies were incorporated into reviews of the literature. However, these data were considered only when higher levels of evidence were not available and the topic was deemed critical.When formulating the PICO questions, the task force felt it important to evaluate patient outcomes that extend beyond return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or discharge from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). In recognition that the measures must have meaning, not only to clinicians but also to parents and caregivers, longer-term outcomes at 30 days, 60 days, 180 days, and 1 year with favorable neurologic status were included in the relevant PICO questions.Each task force performed a detailed systematic review based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 1 and using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group.2 After identifying and prioritizing the questions to be addressed (by using the PICO format) 3 with the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evaluation. The reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk-of-bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 Quality Assessment of Diagnosti...

show abstract

Section: Consensus On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Part 6: Pediatric Basic Life Support and Pediatric Advanced Life Support

Caen¹,

Maconochie²,

Aickin³

et al. 2015

Circulation

Self Cite

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…25 Observational data support the use of ECPR for infants and children in cardiac arrest (especially those with underlying cardiac disease) in the in-hospital critical care setting, when patients are refractory to conventional resuscitation, and when the necessary ECPR protocols, expertise, and equipment exist. 26,27 No evidence exists to support its routine use for cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital setting.…”

Section: Intra-arrestmentioning

confidence: 97%

What is new in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines, what is recycled from 2010, and what is relevant for emergency medicine in Canada

Morrison

Caen

Bhanji

et al. 2016

CJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This recommendation was based predominantly on a paediatric case series (65) and extrapolation from adult studies that used short-term outcomes. (66) Valdes et al (67) recently reported that, in their observational cohort study, the use of lignocaine was associated with an increased likelihood of ROSC, as compared with the use of amiodarone or without the use of lignocaine. However, the same study did not show an association between lignocaine or amiodarone use and survival to hospital discharge.…”

Section: (B) Medicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%