The impact of alternate defibrillation strategies on shock-refractory and recurrent ventricular fibrillation: A secondary analysis of the DOSE VF cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The DOSE VF randomized controlled trial (RCT) employed a pragmatic definition of refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF after three successive shocks). However, it remains unclear whether the underlying rhythm during the first three shocks was shock-refractory or recurrent VF.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between alternate defibrillation strategies employed during the DOSE VF RCT and the type of VF, either shock-refractory VF or recurrent VF, on patient outcomes.

METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the DOSE VF RCT. We categorized cases as shock-refractory or recurrent VF based on pre-randomization shocks (shocks 1-3). We then analyzed all subsequent (post-randomization) shocks to assess the impact of standard, vector change (VC) or double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) shocks on clinical outcomes employing logistic regression adjusted for Utstein variables, antiarrhythmics, and epinephrine.

RESULTS: We included 345 patients; 60 (17 %) shock-refractory VF, and 285 (83%) recurrent VF. Patients in recurrent VF had greater survival than shock-refractory VF (OR: 2.76 95% CI [1.04, 7.27]). DSED was superior to standard defibrillation for survival overall, and for patients with shock-refractory VF (28.6% vs 0%, p=0.041) but not for those in recurrent VF. DSED was superior to standard defibrillation for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and neurologic survival for shock-refractory and recurrent VF. VC defibrillation was not superior for survival or ROSC overall, for shock-refractory, or recurrent VF groups, but was superior for VF termination across all groups.

CONCLUSION: DSED appears to be the superior defibrillation strategy in the DOSE VF trial, irrespective of whether the preceding VF is shock-refractory or recurrent.