Amiodarone for ACLS: a critical evaluation.

Abstract

Years ago, William Osler taught physicians, "Be not the first nor the last to adopt a therapy." This continues to be sage advice. Clinicians should be cautious in considering the use of amiodarone in a field setting for cardiac arrest until studies clearly show a benefit over drugs currently in use. The endpoint of the only cardiac arrest study available shows improved survival when amiodarone is combined with other drugs over placebo until the patient gets to the emergency department, but is not a comparison with other current drugs nor had any effect on long-term survival or functioning neurologic status. As previously cited, amiodarone was comparable with bretylium in treating recurrent VT/VF in one controlled study. Further study of this and other ACLS drugs is imperative. In summary, amiodarone should be reclassified as either a class indeterminate agent when used alone ("no harm but no benefit ... evidence insufficient to support final class decision") or a class IIb agent ("acceptable and useful ... supported by fair to good evidence") when used in addition to other therapies in the treatment of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. There is not sufficient evidence to move amiodarone to first-line therapy in the "out-of-hospital" cardiac arrest. This evidence may be available in the future and would then change this recommendation.