ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Esmolol in the management of refractory ventricular fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefractory ventricular fibrillation (rVF) presents a significant challenge in advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS), with traditional antiarrhythmics showing limited success in improving long-term survival and neurological function. Esmolol, a beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor antagonist, might offer benefits due to its rapid onset and catecholamine-suppressing effects during cardiac arrest.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) evaluates the effectiveness of esmolol in improving the temporary return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), sustained ROSC, survival to discharge, and survival to discharge with favorable neurological outcomes in rVF patients. This SRMA reviewed Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Central (Ovid) from their inception until October 2, 2025, for full-text clinical or observational studies assessing esmolol use alongside standard ACLS in adult rVF in both prehospital and in-hospital settings.
resultsThe risk of bias was independently assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled risk ratios (RRs; 95% CI) are reported. Analyses in which I² >50% used a random-effects model; otherwise, a common-effect model was used. Four studies (n=273) are included. Esmolol was associated with an increased temporary ROSC (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.09-2.98), and although the links were not statistically significant, esmolol trended toward a benefit in sustained ROSC (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.28-5.66), survival to discharge (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.57-2.03), and survival to discharge with favorable neurological outcomes (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.83-5.24).
conclusionsEsmolol was associated with improved temporary ROSC in rVF. The sensitivity analysis suggests potential benefits for sustained ROSC and neurological survival, but more data are needed. Further research is needed to clarify its role.
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.