Abstract:Introduction: Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) in cardiopulmonary resuscitation has shown different results in comparison with standard defibrillation in the treatment of refractory ventricular fibrillation (RVF). This review aims to compare the advantages of DSED with standard defibrillation in the treatment of refractory ventricular fibrillation. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 1, 2022. Studies included adult patients who developed RVF. The study used random-effects and fixed-effects models for meta-analysis, which was reported by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), mean difference (MD), or standardized mean difference (SMD). The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using the Robins-I tool for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB-2) tool for clinical trials. Primary outcomes included the termination of RVF, prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, and good neurological recovery. Secondary outcomes included age, total defibrillation attempts, emergency medical system arrival time, and dose of epinephrine and amiodarone used. Results: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 10 studies containing 1347 patients with available data on treatment outcomes were included. The pooled estimate was (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.19; Z = 0.42, P = 0.678 > 0.05) for Termination of RVF, (RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.11; Z = 1.23, P = 0.219 > 0.05) for ROSC, (RR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.06; Z = 1.4, P = 0.162 > 0.05) for survival to hospital admission, (RR 0.77, 95%CI, 0.52 to 1.15; Z = 1.26, P = 0.206 > 0.05) for survival to hospital discharge, (RR 0.65, 95%CI, 0.35 to 1.22; Z = 1.33, P = 0.184 > 0.05) for good neurologic recovery, (MD −1.01, 95%CI, −3.07 to 1.06; Z = 0.96, P = 0.34 > 0.05) for age, (MD 2.27, 95%CI, 1.80 to 2.73; Z = 9.50, P = 0.001 < 0.05) for total defibrillation attempts, (MD 1.10, 95%CI, −0.45 to 66; Z = 1.39, P = 0.16 > 0.05) for emergency medical system arrival time, (SMD 0.34, 95%CI, 0.17 to 0.50; Z = 4.04, P = 0.001 < 0.05) for epinephrine, and (SMD −0.30, 95%CI, −0.65 to −0.05; Z = 1.66, P = 0.1 > 0.05) for amiodarone. Conclusion: We discovered no differences between DSED and standard defibrillation in termination of RVF, prehospital return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, good neurological outcome, emergency medical system arrival time, and amiodarone doses in patients with RVF. There were some differences in the number of defibrillations and epinephrine doses utilized during resuscitation. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=329354], identifier [CRD42022329354].

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

DOuble SEquential External Defibrillation for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation (DOSE VF): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Double sequential external defibrillation versus standard defibrillation in refractory ventricular fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Association of Coronary Angiography with ST-Elevation and No ST-Elevation in Patients with Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation - A substudy of the DOuble SEquential External Defibrillation for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation (DOSE-VF Randomized Control Trial)

Long-Term Outcomes of Brugada Substrate Ablation: A Report from BRAVO (brugada Ablation of VF Substrate Ongoing Multicenter Registry).

Successful Resuscitation from Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation by BLS Providers Employing Double Sequential External Defibrillation: A Case Report

First-Line Catheter Ablation of Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia in Cardiomyopathy Concurrent With Defibrillator Implantation: The PAUSE-SCD Randomized Trial

Survival in relation to number of defibrillation attempts in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Prediction of Shock-Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation During Resuscitation of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Circumferential Pulmonary Vein Isolation Plus Low-Voltage Area Modification in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Impact of Defibrillator Electrode Placement on Outcome of Electrical Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation: A Pilot Observational Study

Safety and Effectiveness of Electrical and Pharmacological Cardioversion in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation. Part I: Study Rationale, Design and Assessment of Effectiveness

Esmolol, vector change, and dose-capped epinephrine for prehospital ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia

Recurrence of ventricular fibrillation in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest: Clinical evidence and underlying ionic mechanisms

Clinical Features and Outcomes Among Patients With Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and an Initial Shockable Rhythm

Comparison study of defibrillator therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death

Outcomes associated with amiodarone and lidocaine for the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest with shock-refractory pulseless ventricular tachyarrhythmia

Use of esmolol after failure of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation to treat patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation

Antiarrhythmic preferences and outcomes post DC cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, an Australian rural perspective

Minnesota Resuscitation Consortium's Advanced Perfusion and Reperfusion Cardiac Life Support Strategy for Out-of-Hospital Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation

Prehospital optimal shock energy for defibrillation (POSED): A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial