The lack of evidence-based management in electrical storm: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical storm (ES) is associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, there has been limited research in ES resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency in the management of this life-threatening condition. The objective of this scoping review was to define the current body of literature evaluating pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies used in the management of ES. A comprehensive search of Medline, CENTRAL and Embase was completed on January 11, 2025. Primary studies on pharmacotherapies in ES were included if they reported therapy-related outcomes and included ≥ 5 adult patients. A total of 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized control trials (three trials had overlapping cohorts) and the remaining were observational studies. Amiodarone, quinidine, landiolol, isoproterenol, and mexiletine were the most studied medications. The use of sedation for ES was exclusively studied in the context of mechanical ventilation. There was an increase in the number of ES studies over time, but sample sizes remained small and unchanged. Existing evidence to guide the management of ES is predominantly based on small observational studies. High quality data to inform the management of ES is needed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".