Strategies for reversing shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation is defined as ventricular fibrillation persisting after three defibrillation attempts. In approximately 10 to 25% of all cardiac arrests, shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation develops, and 87 to 98% of these patients die. RECENT FINDINGS: In the treatment of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation, defibrillation using biphasic waveforms is considered as an intervention of choice. Intravenous amiodarone is also acceptable, safe, and useful, based on evidence from two randomized clinical trials. Intravenous vasopressin is acceptable and probably safe and useful, but the evidence supporting this recommendation is coming from a small, randomized clinical trial. Procainamide is acceptable but not recommended. In the presence of acute myocardial infarction and recurrent ventricular fibrillation, if all other therapies fail, beta-blockers can be considered. Magnesium, lidocaine, and bretylium are not recommended in the treatment of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation. SUMMARY: Biphasic defibrillation and intravenous amiodarone are useful in shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".