Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) represents one of the greatest challenges in emergency medicine. Despite advances in resuscitation techniques, overall survival remains low, hovering around 10% in most contexts. A recent study published in Resuscitation analyzed the impact of alternative defibrillation strategies on the time spent in ventricular fibrillation (VF), providing interesting new perspectives for the treatment of refractory VF.
Historical Evolution of Defibrillation
Electrical defibrillation represents one of the most important advances in cardiac arrest management. Since its first documented use in 1947 by Claude Beck during a surgical procedure, the technique has evolved significantly. The introduction of biphasic defibrillators in the early 1990s marked important progress, improving efficacy and reducing myocardial damage compared to previous monophasic defibrillators.
However, despite these technological advances, refractory VF - defined as the persistence of VF after three or more shocks - remains a significant challenge, with particularly low survival rates.
Current Guideline Positioning
Current international guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation maintain a conservative approach regarding alternative defibrillation strategies:
ILCOR (International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation): Does not provide specific recommendations on the use of DSED (Double Sequential External Defibrillation) or VC (Vector Change), citing insufficient high-quality evidence.
AHA (American Heart Association): In the 2020 guidelines, mentions DSED and VC as potentially useful strategies in refractory VF, but without a formal recommendation for their routine use.
ERC (European Resuscitation Council): In the 2021 guidelines, recognizes the potential benefit of these alternative strategies, but suggests limiting their use to research contexts or specific protocols.
The DOSE VF Study: A Paradigm Shift?
Methodology
The study used a rigorous design:
Cluster randomized controlled trial
Setting: six emergency medical services in Ontario
Population: 342 patients with refractory VF
Inclusion criteria: persistent VF after three standard shocks
Randomization to three arms: standard, VC, DSED
The methodological peculiarity of the study was the detailed analysis of time spent in VF in the 120 seconds following each shock, providing a new perspective on the effectiveness of different strategies.
Detailed Results
Beyond the main results already mentioned, the study highlighted other relevant aspects:
Temporal Patterns:
The reduction in VF time was more pronounced in the first two post-randomization shocks
The effect tended to decrease with subsequent shocks
Rhythm Transitions:
DSED: lower probability of persistent VF (29.9%)
Standard: higher probability of persistent VF (40.6%)
VC: intermediate results
Neurological Outcomes:
Trend toward better neurological outcomes in the DSED group
Possible correlation with reduction in total VF time
The Role of Timing in DSED: New Analyses and Practical Implications
A recent study published in Resuscitation by Rahimi et al. analyzed the role of timing in double sequential defibrillation (DSD). The study revealed that the optimal interval between two shocks should be less than 75 milliseconds to maximize defibrillation success.
Main Results:
VF terminated in 48% of patients with interval <75ms
In patients with intervals >75ms, the VF conversion rate was only 24%
No significant difference in hospital survival between the two groups
These data suggest that simultaneity of shocks might improve defibrillation effectiveness in refractory VF. However, further studies are needed to confirm these results on a large scale.
Pathophysiological Mechanisms
The superior effectiveness of alternative strategies can be explained through several mechanisms:
1. Metabolic Effects:
Less depletion of myocardial ATP
Reduction in lactate accumulation
Preservation of cellular energy reserves
2. Electrophysiological Effects:
Overcoming areas of conduction block
Modification of transmural voltage gradients
Possible interruption of reentry circuits
3. Hemodynamic Effects:
Less total time of low perfusion
Reduction in ischemia-reperfusion injury
Better preservation of myocardial function
Practical Implications for Prehospital Care
In the context of prehospital emergency care, implementation timing represents a crucial factor. We should consider early use of the procedure in selected cases, without necessarily waiting for the failure of three conventional shocks. This approach could be integrated into local protocols, adapting it to the specificities of the territory.
From a technical standpoint, specific training of personnel is fundamental to ensure the effectiveness of the intervention. Particular attention must be paid to the correct positioning of electrodes, a determining element for the success of the procedure. It is also essential to minimize interruptions of chest compressions during application, thus maintaining adequate perfusion.
Efficient resource management completes the operational framework. It is necessary to ensure the availability of additional defibrillators specific for DSD, effectively coordinate the team during the procedure, and optimize intervention times. Careful organization of these aspects can make the difference in the outcome of the emergency, significantly improving the chances of success.
Ongoing Studies and Future Perspectives
Several trials currently underway could influence future guidelines:
DOUBLE-D trial (Europe):
Evaluates DSD after a single failed shock
Potential paradigm shift toward earlier use
STRAT-DEFI study:
Comparison of different defibrillation strategies
Focus on optimal timing of implementation
DUALDEFIB trial:
DSD as an initial strategy
Potential revolution in the approach to VF
Conclusions and Perspectives
The DOSE VF study represents an important step forward in understanding and treating refractory VF. The demonstration that alternative defibrillation strategies reduce time in VF and improve outcomes provides a solid basis for their use in clinical practice.
However, implementing these strategies requires:
Updating operational protocols
Specific personnel training
Continuous evaluation of results
Possible adjustment of available resources
While waiting for international guidelines to incorporate this evidence, emergency medical services can consider implementing specific protocols based on these alternative strategies, particularly in selected cases of refractory VF.
Future research will further clarify the role of these strategies, potentially modifying the standard approach to defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
References
Drennan IR, Dorian P, McLeod S, Pinto R, Scales DC, Turner L, Feldman M, Verbeek PR, Morrison LJ, Cheskes S. DOuble SEquential External Defibrillation for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation (DOSE VF): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2020 Nov 26;21(1):977. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04904-z. PMID: 33243277; PMCID: PMC7689391.
Link, M.S., et al. "Part 6: Electrical Therapies: Automated External Defibrillators, Defibrillation, Cardioversion, and Pacing: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care." Circulation, 2020.
Nolan, J.P., et al. "European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Executive Summary." Resuscitation, 2021.
Panchal, A.R., et al. "Part 3: Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care." Circulation, 2020.
Rahimi, H., et al. "The impact of double sequential shock timings on outcomes during refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest." Resuscitation, 2024.
Fowler, P., et al. "Strategies for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation: An Update on Current Evidence." Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2023.
Comments