Ventricular Fibrillation Refractory to Cutaneous Electrical Defibrillation in a Morbidly Obese Pediatric Patient With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 201-203
Author(s):  
Maryte H. Gylys ◽  
Govind Rajan
2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 709-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisashi Yokoshiki ◽  
Hirofumi Mitsuyama ◽  
Masaya Watanabe ◽  
Kazuya Mizukami ◽  
Hiroyuki Tsutsui

Resuscitation ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
P.H. Robert ◽  
L. De Myttenaere ◽  
E. Makhoul ◽  
D. Verset ◽  
E. Beaucarne ◽  
...  

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 1366-1369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imke Christiaans ◽  
Ronald H. Lekanne dit Deprez ◽  
Irene M. van Langen ◽  
Arthur A.M. Wilde

2011 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 244-247
Author(s):  
Zhao Heng Lin

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 287 (38) ◽  
pp. 31845-31855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle S. Parvatiyar ◽  
Andrew P. Landstrom ◽  
Cicero Figueiredo-Freitas ◽  
James D. Potter ◽  
Michael J. Ackerman ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 2183-2192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian E. Zaugg ◽  
Shao T. Wu ◽  
Vania Barbosa ◽  
Peter T. Buser ◽  
Joan Wikman-Coffelt ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document