ReviewCirculation reports2025
Should Sedative Administration Be Recommended as an Antiarrhythmic Therapy to Suppress Ventricular Fibrillation and Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Electrical Storm? - A Scoping Review.
Review in Circulation reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electrical storm (ES) is defined as a condition in which ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes requiring electrical shock or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks occur ≥3 times within 24 h. It is a life-threatening condition, and treatment options include antiarrhythmic drugs, sedation, circulatory support, and catheter ablation. Sedation is conventionally performed for repeated electrical shocks; however, evidence for its effectiveness in ES suppression remains limited. This scoping review aimed to assess whether the use of sedatives is beneficial for ES suppression. Methods and Results: This scoping review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Three online databases were searched to identify studies published from the inception of each database until September 18, 2024. To date, no randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials or observational analytical studies have met the inclusion criteria for the use of sedation in patients with ES. Conclusions: This scoping review underscores the need for high-quality studies to enhance the level of evidence and bridge knowledge gaps, ultimately aiming to shift the care paradigm for patients with ES.
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.