2011Applied Mechanics and MaterialsRequires access

Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia Storm

Zhao Lin

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of low-energy direct current defibrillation combined with intravenous application of β-receptor blocker in the treatment of ventricular tachycardia storm (VTS). METHODS: A total of 59 patients with VTS were randomly divided into two groups. In the control group (n = 31), intravenous administration of Lidocaine or Amiodarone and routine electrical defibrillation were performed. In the esmolol group (n = 28), intravenous administration of esmolol and low-energy electrical defibrillation were performed in addition to the same drug treatment as the control group.RESULTS: The success rate of terminating recurrent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was significantly higher in the esmolol group than in the control group (89.71% vs. 39.89%, P < 0.05). The necessary discharge times and average discharge energy to terminate ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were significantly decreased in the esmolol group compared with control (5.69 ± 1.34 times vs. 8.63 ± 3.79 times, 95.32 ± 13.21J vs. 185.39 ± 25.63J, both P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension (45.16% vs. 39.29%), sinus bradycardia (3.23% vs. 3.57%), and junctional/ventricular escape (38.71% vs. 39.29%) between the esmolol and control groups (all P > 0.05). The mortality was significantly lower in the esmolol group than in the control group (21.43%, 6/28 vs. 77.42%, 24/31, P < 0.01).CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional treatment, intravenous administration of a β-receptor blocker combined with low-energy electrical defibrillation could be a safe and effective therapy to treat VTS.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of low-energy direct current defibrillation combined with intravenous application of β-receptor blocker in the treatment of ventricular tachycardia storm (VTS). METHODS: A total of 59 patients with VTS were randomly divided into two groups. In the control group (n = 31), intravenous administration of Lidocaine or Amiodarone and routine electrical defibrillation were performed. In the esmolol group (n = 28), intravenous administration of esmolol and low-energy electrical defibrillation were performed in addition to the same drug treatment as the control group.RESULTS: The success rate of terminating recurrent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was significantly higher in the esmolol group than in the control group (89.71% vs. 39.89%, P < 0.05). The necessary discharge times and average discharge energy to terminate ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were significantly decreased in the esmolol group compared with control (5.69 ± 1.34 times vs. 8.63 ± 3.79 times, 95.32 ± 13.21J vs. 185.39 ± 25.63J, both P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension (45.16% vs. 39.29%), sinus bradycardia (3.23% vs. 3.57%), and junctional/ventricular escape (38.71% vs. 39.29%) between the esmolol and control groups (all P > 0.05). The mortality was significantly lower in the esmolol group than in the control group (21.43%, 6/28 vs. 77.42%, 24/31, P < 0.01).CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional treatment, intravenous administration of a β-receptor blocker combined with low-energy electrical defibrillation could be a safe and effective therapy to treat VTS.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of low-energy direct current defibrillation combined with intravenous application of β-receptor blocker in the treatment of ventricular tachycardia storm (VTS). METHODS: A total of 59 patients with VTS were randomly divided into two groups. In the control group (n = 31), intravenous administration of Lidocaine or Amiodarone and routine electrical defibrillation were performed. In the esmolol group (n = 28), intravenous administration of esmolol and low-energy electrical defibrillation were performed in addition to the same drug treatment as the control group.RESULTS: The success rate of terminating recurrent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was significantly higher in the esmolol group than in the control group (89.71% vs. 39.89%, P < 0.05). The necessary discharge times and average discharge energy to terminate ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were significantly decreased in the esmolol group compared with control (5.69 ± 1.34 times vs. 8.63 ± 3.79 times, 95.32 ± 13.21J vs. 185.39 ± 25.63J, both P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension (45.16% vs. 39.29%), sinus bradycardia (3.23% vs. 3.57%), and junctional/ventricular escape (38.71% vs. 39.29%) between the esmolol and control groups (all P > 0.05). The mortality was significantly lower in the esmolol group than in the control group (21.43%, 6/28 vs. 77.42%, 24/31, P < 0.01).CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional treatment, intravenous administration of a β-receptor blocker combined with low-energy electrical defibrillation could be a safe and effective therapy to treat VTS.

Key concepts: Esmolol, Defibrillation, Medicine, Ventricular fibrillation, Amiodarone, Defibrillation threshold, Anesthesia, Ventricular tachycardia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia Storm — Research Paper | ScholarLens