Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

should we use it?

Soar, Jasmeet

Current Opinion in Critical Care: June 2018 - Volume 24 - Issue 3 - p 138–142
doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000498

Purpose of review The optimal antiarrhythmic drug therapy (amiodarone or lidocaine) in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pVT) cardiac arrest that is refractory to defibrillation is uncertain. This article reviews the evidence for and against these drugs, alternatives treatments for refractory VF/pVT and aims to define the role of antiarrhythmic drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Recent findings A large randomized controlled trial that compared amiodarone, lidocaine and saline 0.9% sodium chloride for the treatment of refractory VF/pVT out-of-hospital cardiac arrest reported no difference in survival to hospital discharge or neurological outcome. In patients with witnessed arrest, survival was improved with antiarrhythmic drugs compared to saline.

Summary The benefit of antiarrhythmic drugs appears to be for those patients in whom initial early CPR and defibrillation attempts fail and the antiarrhythmic drug is given early. There does not appear to be any clear survival benefit for any one particular drug and other factors such as availability and cost should be considered when deciding which drug to use. Furthermore, other interventions (e.g. percutaneous coronary intervention and extra-corporeal CPR) may provide additional survival benefit when defibrillation attempts and antiarrhythmic drugs are not effective.

Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK

Correspondence to Jasmeet Soar, Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. Tel: +44 117 414 5114; e-mail:

Copyright © 2018 YEAR Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.