ArticleResuscitation2025
A retrospective 'target trial emulation' comparing amiodarone and lidocaine for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.
Article in Resuscitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Amiodarone Versus Lidocaine as Antiarrhythmic Therapy for Cardiac Arrest with Shockable Rhythms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Centers and Protocols for Acute Cardiovascular Care: Bridging the Gap Between Spoke and Hub Sites.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe administration of amiodarone or lidocaine is recommended during the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients presenting with defibrillation-refractory or recurrent ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. Our objective was to use 'target trial emulation' methodology to compare the outcomes of patients who received amiodarone or lidocaine during resuscitation.
methodsAdult, non-traumatic OHCA patients in the ESO Data Collaborative 2018-2023 datasets who experienced OHCA prior to EMS arrival, presented with a shockable rhythm, and received amiodarone or lidocaine during resuscitation were evaluated for inclusion. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to investigate the association between antiarrhythmic and outcomes. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the number of post-drug defibrillations and survival to hospital discharge.
resultsAfter application of exclusion criteria, 23,263 patients from 1,707 EMS agencies were eligible for analysis. Prior to PSM, 6,010/20,284 (29.6%) of the patients who received amiodarone and 1,071/2,979 (35.9%) of the patients who received lidocaine achieved prehospital ROSC. Following PSM, lidocaine administration was associated with greater odds of prehospital ROSC (36.0 vs. 30.4%; aOR: 1.29 [1.16, 1.44], n = 2,976 matched pairs). Lidocaine administration was also associated with fewer post-drug defibrillations (median: 2 [0-4] vs. 2 [0-6], mean: 3.3 vs. 3.9, p < 0.01, n = 2,976 pairs), and greater odds of survival to discharge (35.1 vs. 25.7%; OR: 1.54 [1.19, 2.00], n = 538 pairs).
conclusionOur 'target trial emulation' suggested that lidocaine was associated with greater odds of prehospital ROSC in comparison to amiodarone when administered during resuscitation from shock refractory or recurrent VF/VT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.