Comparison between amiodarone and lidocaine for ventricular fibrillation treatment during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review

Cardiac arrest is a condition in which the heart mechanical functioning is compromised and usually it is due an electrical dysfunction of the cardiac cells and this can result in disorganization of cardiac rhythm and even heart failure, a situation of medical emergency in which seconds can make the difference between life and death. In cardiac arrest, it's necessary to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) maneuver and, if there are shockable rhythms (such as ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), defibrillation should be administered on the patient. Even if the cardiac rhythm is reestablished, the condition is still serious due to the risk of recurrent electrical alteration of the heart. With the intent of avoiding a new rhythmic alteration of the heart, it's ministered antiarrhythmic drugs, such as amiodarone or lidocaine. Even though the use of one of these drugs is recommended, there are no consensuses about which one has higher survival rate of patients or which has the highest rate of return of spontaneous circulation. Thus, this systematic review aims to clarify which one of these two drugs is more efficient at preventing new electrical alterations of patients post cardiorespiratory arrest.