Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29204991›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B

Efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for preventing ventricular fibrillation after aortic cross-clamp release in open heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Yong Zheng, Qiang Gu, Hong-Wu Chen, Huai-Ming Peng, Dong-Yu Jia, Yu Zhou, Mei-Xiang Xiang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Yong ZhengDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310009, China.
Qiang GuDepartment of Anesthesiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Hong-Wu ChenCardiology Division, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
Huai-Ming PengDepartment of Respiratory, Tinhu People's Hospital, Yancheng 224001, China.
Dong-Yu JiaDepartment of Biology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro 30460, USA.
Yu ZhouDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310009, China.
Mei-Xiang XiangDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310009, China.
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNGeorgia Southern University · USJiangsu Province Hospital · CNNantong University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe relative preventative efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for ventricular fibrillation (VF) after release of an aortic cross-clamp (ACC) during open heart surgery has not been determined. This meta-analysis was designed to systematically evaluate the influence of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo on the incidence of VF after ACC.

methodsProspective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the VF-preventative effects of amiodarone with lidocaine, or amiodarone or lidocaine with placebo were included. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant RCTs. Fixed or randomized effect models were applied according to the heterogeneity of the data from the selected studies.

resultsWe included eight RCTs in the analysis. Pooled results suggested that the preventative effects of amiodarone and lidocaine were comparable (relative risk (RR)=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70 to 1.80, P=0.63), but both were superior to the placebo (amiodarone, RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.00, P=0.05; lidocaine, RR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.88, P=0.006). The percentage of patients requiring electric defibrillation counter shocks (DCSs) did not differ significantly among patients administered amiodarone (RR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.04 to 1.19, P=0.08), lidocaine (RR=2.44, 95% CI: 0.13 to 44.02, P=0.55), or the placebo (RR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.25, P=0.16).

conclusionsAmiodarone and lidocaine are comparably effective in preventing VF after ACC, but the percentage of patients who subsequently require DCSs does not differ among those administered amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAmiodaroneAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsAortaCardiac Surgical ProceduresElectric CountershockFemaleHumansLidocaineMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVentricular FibrillationAmiodaroneAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsLidocaineAmiodarone; Lidocaine; Ventricular fibrillation; Open heart surgery

Identifiers

PMID29204991
PMCPMC5742294
OpenAlexW2777143109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.