Comparing intravenous XXXX or @entity3303 , or both, outcomes for inpatients with pulseless ventricular arrhythmias.

@entity1 @entity2643 @entity3303 @entity2224 @entity1167 @entity1168
OBJECTIVE: To compare survival rates of @entity1 with in-hospital @entity1167 due to @entity2224 treated with @entity3303 , @entity2643 , or @entity2643 plus @entity3303 . DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Three academic medical centers in the United States. @entity1 : Hospitalized adult @entity1 who received @entity2643 , @entity3303 , or a combination for @entity2224 between August 1, 2000, and July 31, 2002. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected according to the Utstein style. In-hospital proportion of @entity1 living at 24 hrs and discharge were analyzed using chi-square analysis. Of the 605 @entity1 medical records reviewed, 194 met criteria for inclusion (n=79 for @entity3303 , n=74 for @entity2643 , n=41 for combination). Available data showed no difference in proportion of @entity1 alive 24 hrs post- @entity1167 (p=.39). Cox regression analysis indicated a decreased likelihood of survival in @entity1 with @entity2224 as an initial rhythm as compared with those who presented with @entity1168 followed by @entity2224 and in those @entity1 who received @entity2643 as compared with @entity3303 . However, only 14 @entity1 (25%) in the @entity2643 group received the recommended initial 300-mg intravenous bolus, and @entity2643 was administered an average of 8 mins later in the code compared with @entity3303 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results generate the hypothesis that inpatients with @entity1167 may have different benefits from @entity3303 and @entity2643 than previously demonstrated. Inadequate dosing and later administration of @entity2643 in the code were two confounding factors in this study. Prospective studies evaluating these agents are warranted.
