Treatment of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias Refractory To Shock With Beta Blockers: The SHOCK and BLOCK Trial
NCT ID: NCT00401882
Last Updated: 2017-05-25
Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
PHASE2
7 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2007-01-31
2012-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Effect of Metoprolol in Patients With Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy.
NCT03532802
Effect of BMS-914392 on Pharmacokinetics of Metoprolol
NCT01211821
Study Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine in Cardiogenic Shock
NCT01367743
Esmolol for Treatment of Perioperative Tachycardia
NCT01208402
Efficacy and Safety of Nebivolol Versus Metoprolol in Hypertensive Subject Taking Amlodipine
NCT03635125
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Prompt electrical defibrillation (electrical shocks) is the treatment of choice in persons who develop SCD due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT). However, in up to 25% of all cardiac arrests, patients develop shock resistant VF, defined as VF persisting beyond three defibrillation attempts, and 87-97% of these patients die. Medical therapy, including antiarrhythmic agents, sympathomimetic agents (i.e. stimulants), and buffers have been relegated to a secondary role since there is little evidence that they are of benefit and there use is considered indeterminate or class IIB. Furthermore, the "Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" of the American Heart Association and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommend antiarrhythmic drugs as "acceptable" and "probably helpful" in the treatment of VF that persists after three or more external defibrillation shocks. It has been previously reported that the survival rate of hospital patients suffering a cardiac arrest in which epinephrine was required was only 6%. Furthermore, Dorian et al reported a survival to hospital admission of 22.8% in patients suffering an out of hospital cardiac arrest and receiving amiodarone. It is believed that the acute effects of amiodarone are due to the class II or beta blocking effects of the drug.
Resuscitation can only be considered successful if the survivor has no disabling cognitive function. The American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation guidelines state that with a duration of cardiac arrest of \> 8 to 10 minutes, the frequency of significant, permanent neurologic damage becomes unacceptably high. Newer treatment modalities are needed to improve patient outcomes.
Epinephrine has been used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for more than 100 years yet its use has become controversial because it is associated with increased myocardial oxygen consumption, ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and myocardial dysfunction during the period after resuscitation. The current International Guidelines on Emergency Cardiac Care cite both epinephrine and vasopressin as acceptable vasopressor drugs for treatment of refractory VF but neither drug is acknowledged to be of proven benefit.
Beta blockers might improve patient outcomes by blunting the adverse affects of a hyperadrenergic state that occurs during a cardiac arrest and by improving the balance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand. Ditchey et al showed in an animal model that pretreatment with a beta blocker prior to cardiac arrest followed by standard epinephrine therapy results in reduced myocardial injury during CPR without compromising successful defibrillation or post resuscitation left ventricular function.
The current research protocol was formulated in an attempt to develop new treatment options for patients who develop an in-hospital VF or pVT arrest refractory to electrical defibrillation with the specific goal of improving patient outcomes. The trial will utilize pre-filled, blinded syringes of Metoprolol in patients who develop an in-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (see study protocol).
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) claims approximately 250,000 persons annually in the United States. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT) appear to be responsible for 25-35% of all out of hospital episodes of sudden cardiac death. The reported average survival to hospital discharge following in-hospital arrest is just as poor at approximately 14-17% despite the development of widespread implementation of basic and advanced cardiac life support. Current American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend prompt electrical defibrillation to reestablish organized electrical activity. Increasing duration of VF (i.e. "shock resistant VF") can result in two major adverse effects. First, an increased duration can reduce the ability to terminate the arrhythmia8. Second, if VF continues for more than four minutes, there is irreversible damage to the central nervous system and other organs. Despite aggressive efforts, successful resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occurs in only one third of patients and only about 10% of all patients are ultimately discharged from the hospital, many of whom are neurologically impaired. Also, the outcome of patients who suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest is poor with reported survival to hospital discharge rates of 10-15%. Thus, despite improvements and advances in the treatment of heart disease, the outcome of patients experiencing SCD remains poor.
Prompt and early defibrillation of VF or pVT has become the standard of care. Drug therapy for shock resistant VF or pVT has been relegated to a secondary role since there is little evidence that these agents are of benefit. As a result, their use is considered indeterminate or class IIB. In addition, cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation are extreme forms of stress that lead to the highest catecholamine levels ever recorded in both human or experimental animal models. Endogenous catecholamine concentrations are high during ventricular fibrillation even in the absence of epinephrine administration. Currently, epinephrine is the vasopressor of choice for the treatment of cardiac arrest although vasopressin has been used as an alternative. Of note, vasopressin has been shown to be superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole however, its effects were similar to those of epinephrine in the management of VF or pulseless electrical activity. Furthermore, previous studies have raised concern that epinephrine's beta adrenergic effect may increase the myocardial oxygen consumption of the fibrillating heart and predispose to post-defibrillation dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmias.
Numerous animal studies have shown that beta adrenergic blockade reduces myocardial injury and improves survival. Kudenchuk, et al undertook a study in patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. Patients were randomized to receive either amiodarone or placebo after three consecutive defibrillations and one dose of epinephrine. The authors concluded that patients who received amiodarone had a higher rate of survival to hospital admission. It is felt that the beneficial effects are related to the initial class II or beta blocking properties of amiodarone. Furthermore, Dorian, et al reported a higher rate of survival to hospital admission in patients who received amiodarone as compared to lidocaine for shock resistant out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation. Analysis from the European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial revealed an interaction between beta-blockers and amiodarone, specifically, the combination group had a better survival and the interaction was statistically significant for arrhythmic death or resuscitated arrest.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
QUADRUPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Standard Of Care Drug Epinephrine
Additional doses of Epinephrine (1 mg) given as part of standard of care during cardiac arrest
Epinephrine
Epinephrine (1 mg) IV additional doses
IV Metoprolol instead Epinephrine
IV metoprolol 5 mg. up to 2 times (only) during cardiac arrest will be given instead of additional Epinephrine doses
Metoprolol
Metoprolol 5 mg IV (up to two times only) instead of epinephrine additional doses
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Epinephrine
Epinephrine (1 mg) IV additional doses
Metoprolol
Metoprolol 5 mg IV (up to two times only) instead of epinephrine additional doses
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients who develop an in-hospital cardiac arrest due to asystole or PEA which subsequently converts to VF or pVT will be included.
Exclusion Criteria
* Pregnancy
* Age \< 18 years of age
* Patients who develop VF or pVT in the emergency room, operating room or surgical intensive care unit.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Medtronic BRC
INDUSTRY
David Haines, MD
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
David Haines, MD
Coordinator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
David E Haines, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
William Beaumont Hospitals
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
William Beaumont Hospital
Royal Oak, Michigan, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2006-008
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.