-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Propafenone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock-Comparison to amiodarone and metoprolol
M. Balik, I. Kolnikova, M. Maly, P. Waldauf, G. Tavazzi, J. Kristof,
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
NLK
ProQuest Central
od 2003-03-01 do Před 2 měsíci
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
od 2003-03-01 do Před 2 měsíci
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2003-03-01 do Před 2 měsíci
- MeSH
- amiodaron terapeutické užití MeSH
- antiarytmika terapeutické užití MeSH
- elektrická defibrilace statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- metoprolol terapeutické užití MeSH
- péče o pacienty v kritickém stavu * MeSH
- propafenon terapeutické užití MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- septický šok farmakoterapie patofyziologie MeSH
- supraventrikulární tachykardie farmakoterapie patofyziologie MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
PURPOSE: The occurence of supraventricular arrhythmias associate with an unfavourable prognosis in septic shock. Propafenone could be a feasible antiarrhythmic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients collected over a period of 24months were divided into the three groups based on antiarrhythmic: Group1(amiodarone), Group2(propafenone), Group3(metoprolol). Type of arrhythmia, cardioversion rates, demographic, haemodynamic, laboratory parameters were recorded in the first 24h. The outcome data were compared between the groups. RESULTS: 234 patients (99.1% ventilated) were included, the prevailing arrhythmia was acute onset atrial fibrillation (AF,69.7%). Except for the dosage of noradrenaline (0.35(0.14-0.78) in Group1(n=142)vs 0.25(0.10-0.50),p<0.01 in Group2(n=78)vs 0.14(0.07-0.25)μg/kg·min,p<0.05 in Group3(n=14)) the ejection fraction of left ventricle, rates of renal replacement therapy, arterial lactate and procalcitonin levels were not different between the groups. The cardioversion rate in Group1(74%) was lower than in Group2(89%) and Group3(92%). ICU and 28-day mortalities of Group1 were not significantly higher than in Group2 and Group3. Multivariate analysis demonstrated higher 12-month mortality in Group1 than in Group2 (HR1.58(1.04;2.38),p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Propafenone demonstrated a higher cardioversion rate than amiodarone with a similar impact on the outcome. Patients remaining in acute onset arrhythmia did not demonstrate significantly higher ICU, 28-day and 12-month mortalities compared to those successfully cardioverted or to those having chronic AF.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc18033914
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20181016103519.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 181008s2017 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.04.027 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)28463737
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Balik, M $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, Czechia. Electronic address: martin.balik@vfn.cz.
- 245 10
- $a Propafenone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock-Comparison to amiodarone and metoprolol / $c M. Balik, I. Kolnikova, M. Maly, P. Waldauf, G. Tavazzi, J. Kristof,
- 520 9_
- $a PURPOSE: The occurence of supraventricular arrhythmias associate with an unfavourable prognosis in septic shock. Propafenone could be a feasible antiarrhythmic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients collected over a period of 24months were divided into the three groups based on antiarrhythmic: Group1(amiodarone), Group2(propafenone), Group3(metoprolol). Type of arrhythmia, cardioversion rates, demographic, haemodynamic, laboratory parameters were recorded in the first 24h. The outcome data were compared between the groups. RESULTS: 234 patients (99.1% ventilated) were included, the prevailing arrhythmia was acute onset atrial fibrillation (AF,69.7%). Except for the dosage of noradrenaline (0.35(0.14-0.78) in Group1(n=142)vs 0.25(0.10-0.50),p<0.01 in Group2(n=78)vs 0.14(0.07-0.25)μg/kg·min,p<0.05 in Group3(n=14)) the ejection fraction of left ventricle, rates of renal replacement therapy, arterial lactate and procalcitonin levels were not different between the groups. The cardioversion rate in Group1(74%) was lower than in Group2(89%) and Group3(92%). ICU and 28-day mortalities of Group1 were not significantly higher than in Group2 and Group3. Multivariate analysis demonstrated higher 12-month mortality in Group1 than in Group2 (HR1.58(1.04;2.38),p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Propafenone demonstrated a higher cardioversion rate than amiodarone with a similar impact on the outcome. Patients remaining in acute onset arrhythmia did not demonstrate significantly higher ICU, 28-day and 12-month mortalities compared to those successfully cardioverted or to those having chronic AF.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a amiodaron $x terapeutické užití $7 D000638
- 650 _2
- $a antiarytmika $x terapeutické užití $7 D000889
- 650 12
- $a péče o pacienty v kritickém stavu $7 D003422
- 650 _2
- $a elektrická defibrilace $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D004554
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a metoprolol $x terapeutické užití $7 D008790
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a propafenon $x terapeutické užití $7 D011405
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a septický šok $x farmakoterapie $x patofyziologie $7 D012772
- 650 _2
- $a supraventrikulární tachykardie $x farmakoterapie $x patofyziologie $7 D013617
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Kolnikova, I $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Maly, M $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Waldauf, P $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady in Prague, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Tavazzi, G $u University of Pavia, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care & Pain Medicine, Foundation Policlinico St. Matteo, IRCCS, Pavia, Italy.
- 700 1_
- $a Kristof, J $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, Czechia.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00002627 $t Journal of critical care $x 1557-8615 $g Roč. 41, č. - (2017), s. 16-23
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28463737 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20181008 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20181016104017 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1339654 $s 1030908
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2017 $b 41 $c - $d 16-23 $e 20170426 $i 1557-8615 $m Journal of critical care $n J Crit Care $x MED00002627
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20181008