Introduction: We compare the outcomes for patients who received esmolol to those who did not receive esmolol during refractory ventricular fibrillation (RVF) in the emergency department (ED). Methods: A retrospective investigation in an urban academic ED of patients between January 2011 and January 2014 of patients with out-of-hospital or ED cardiac arrest (CA) with an initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) who received at least three defibrillation attempts, 300. mg of amiodarone, and 3. mg of adrenaline, and who remained in CA upon ED arrival. Patients who received esmolol during CA were compared to those who did not. Results: 90 patients had CA with an initial rhythm of VF or VT; 65 patients were excluded, leaving 25 for analysis. Six patients received esmolol during cardiac arrest, and nineteen did not. All patients had ventricular dysrhythmias refractory to many defibrillation attempts, including defibrillation after administration of standard ACLS medications. Most received high doses of adrenaline, amiodarone, and sodium bicarbonate. Comparing the patients that received esmolol to those that did not: 67% and 42% had temporary return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC); 67% and 32% had sustained ROSC; 66% and 32% survived to intensive care unit admission; 50% and 16% survived to hospital discharge and 50% and 11% survived to discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome, respectively. Conclusion: Beta-blockade should be considered in patients with RVF in the ED prior to cessation of resuscitative efforts.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||5|
|State||Published - Oct 1 2014|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
- Cardiac arrest
- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation