• Dennis Miraglia, Lourdes A Miguel, and Wilfredo Alonso.
• Department of Internal Medicine, Good Samaritan Hospital, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.
• J Emerg Med. 2020 Oct 1; 59 (4): 521-541.

BackgroundDouble/dual defibrillation (DD) has been proposed as an alternative treatment for refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF). This topic has been poorly researched and data on survival rates are limited.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates whether DD improves outcomes among patients with refractory VF in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with standard defibrillation.MethodsA literature search was conducted on July 20, 2019 using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We gave all results as a pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating the I2 statistic and was deemed significant for a p value of < 0.10 or I2 ≥ 50%. The quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.ResultsWe included 27 records, of which 4 cohort studies totaling 1061 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these, 20.5% (n = 217) received the intervention. DD had no effect on return of spontaneous circulation (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.44-1.04; I2 = 41%, p = 0.08) (GRADE: Very low), survival to admission (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.51-1.17; I2 = 18%, p = 0.22) (GRADE: Very low), or survival to discharge (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.38-1.15; I2 = 0%, p = 0.14) (GRADE: Very low).ConclusionsDD did not improve any outcomes of interest. Therefore, it is imperative that a well-designed study in this area be conducted. Ideally, conducting a randomized controlled trial in this population should be attempted to obtain a higher level of scientific evidence.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…