ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in defibrillation technology, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation remains common during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED; rapid sequential shocks from two defibrillators) and vector-change (VC) defibrillation (switching defibrillation pads to an anterior-posterior position) have been proposed as defibrillation strategies to improve outcomes in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial with crossover among six Canadian paramedic services to evaluate DSED and VC defibrillation as compared with standard defibrillation in adult patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients were treated with one of these three techniques according to the strategy that was randomly assigned to the paramedic service. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included termination of ventricular fibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, and a good neurologic outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 2 or lower (indicating no symptoms to slight disability) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 405 patients were enrolled before the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A total of 136 patients (33.6%) were assigned to receive standard defibrillation, 144 (35.6%) to receive VC defibrillation, and 125 (30.9%) to receive DSED. Survival to hospital discharge was more common in the DSED group than in the standard group (30.4% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 3.67) and more common in the VC group than in the standard group (21.7% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.88). DSED but not VC defibrillation was associated with a higher percentage of patients having a good neurologic outcome than standard defibrillation (relative risk, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.26 to 3.88] and 1.48 [95% CI, 0.81 to 2.71], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation, survival to hospital discharge occurred more frequently among those who received DSED or VC defibrillation than among those who received standard defibrillation. (Funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; DOSE VF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04080986.).
Subject(s)
Electric Countershock , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Ventricular Fibrillation , Adult , Humans , Canada , Defibrillators , Electric Countershock/adverse effects , Electric Countershock/instrumentation , Electric Countershock/methods , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/mortality , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Ventricular Fibrillation/mortality , Ventricular Fibrillation/therapy , Cross-Over Studies , Cluster AnalysisABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously revolutionized the management of patients who need an implanted cardiac implantable electronic device. We report, for the first time, a successful cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation procedure in an 82-year-old man affected by COVID-19, recent myocardial infarction, second-degree 2:1 atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy , Defibrillators, Implantable , Heart Failure , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy/methods , Electric Countershock/methods , Heart Failure/complications , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Arrhythmias are prevalent and reportedly, the second most common complication. Several mechanistic pathways are proposed to explain the pro-arrhythmic effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. A number of treatment approaches have been trialled, each with its inherent unique challenges. This rapid systematic review aimed to examine the current incidence and available treatment of arrhythmias in COVID-19, as well as barriers to implementation. METHODS: Our search of scientific databases identified relevant published studies from 1 January 2000 until 1 June 2020. We also searched Google Scholar for grey literature. We identified 1729 publications of which 1704 were excluded. RESULTS: The incidence and nature of arrhythmias in the setting of COVID-19 were poorly documented across studies. The cumulative incidence of arrhythmia across studies of hospitalised patients was 6.9%. Drug-induced long QT syndrome secondary to antimalarial and antimicrobial therapy was a significant contributor to arrhythmia formation, with an incidence of 14.15%. Torsades de pointes (TdP) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) were reported. Treatment strategies aim to minimise this through risk stratification and regular monitoring of corrected QT interval (QTc). CONCLUSION: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 are at an increased risk of arrhythmias. Drug therapy is pro-arrhythmogenic and may result in TdP and SCD in these patients. Risk assessment and regular QTc monitoring are imperative for safety during the treatment course. Further studies are needed to guide future decision-making.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Long QT Syndrome/chemically induced , Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Antimalarials/adverse effects , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/epidemiology , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Atrial Fibrillation/etiology , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Atrial Flutter/epidemiology , Atrial Flutter/etiology , Atrial Flutter/therapy , Azithromycin/adverse effects , Bradycardia/epidemiology , Bradycardia/etiology , Bradycardia/therapy , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/methods , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/epidemiology , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/etiology , Electric Countershock/methods , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Incidence , Long QT Syndrome/epidemiology , Long QT Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Tachycardia, Ventricular/epidemiology , Tachycardia, Ventricular/etiology , Tachycardia, Ventricular/therapy , Torsades de Pointes/epidemiology , Torsades de Pointes/etiology , Torsades de Pointes/therapy , Ventricular Fibrillation/epidemiology , Ventricular Fibrillation/etiology , Ventricular Fibrillation/therapy , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
Cardiac arrhythmia is a known manifestation of novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Herein, we describe the clinical course of an otherwise healthy patient who experienced persistent ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation which is believed to be directly related to inflammation, as opposed to acute myocardial injury or medications that can prolong the QT interval.