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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".