• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial

M. Balik, M. Maly, T. Brozek, J. Rulisek, M. Porizka, R. Sachl, M. Otahal, P. Brestovansky, E. Svobodova, M. Flaksa, Z. Stach, J. Horejsek, L. Volny, I. Jurisinova, A. Novotny, P. Trachta, J. Kunstyr, P. Kopecky, T. Tencer, J. Pazout, J....

. 2023 ; 49 (11) : 1283-1292. [pub] 20230912

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu randomizované kontrolované studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24000857

Grantová podpora
NV18-06-00417 Agentura Pro Zdravotnický Výzkum České Republiky

E-zdroje Online Plný text

NLK ProQuest Central od 1997-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) od 2000-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) od 1997-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) od 1997-01-01 do Před 1 rokem

PURPOSE: Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared. METHODS: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence. RESULTS: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24000857
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240610121335.0
007      
ta
008      
240109s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00134-023-07208-3 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37698594
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Balik, Martin $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic. martin.balik@vfn.cz $1 https://orcid.org/0000000318642143 $7 xx0075661
245    10
$a Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial / $c M. Balik, M. Maly, T. Brozek, J. Rulisek, M. Porizka, R. Sachl, M. Otahal, P. Brestovansky, E. Svobodova, M. Flaksa, Z. Stach, J. Horejsek, L. Volny, I. Jurisinova, A. Novotny, P. Trachta, J. Kunstyr, P. Kopecky, T. Tencer, J. Pazout, J. Belohlavek, F. Duska, A. Krajcova, P. Waldauf
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared. METHODS: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence. RESULTS: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a amiodaron $x terapeutické užití $7 D000638
650    _2
$a antiarytmika $x terapeutické užití $7 D000889
650    12
$a fibrilace síní $x terapie $7 D001281
650    _2
$a propafenon $x terapeutické užití $7 D011405
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    12
$a septický šok $x komplikace $x farmakoterapie $7 D012772
650    _2
$a tepový objem $7 D013318
650    _2
$a funkce levé komory srdeční $7 D016277
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Maly, Michal $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Brozek, Tomas $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Rulisek, Jan $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Porizka, Michal $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sachl, Robert $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Otahal, Michal $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Brestovansky, Petr $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Svobodova, Eva $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Flaksa, Marek $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic $7 xx0318536
700    1_
$a Stach, Zdenek $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Horejsek, Jan $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Volny, Lukas $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jurisinova, Ivana $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Novotny, Adam $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Trachta, Pavel $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kunstyr, Jan $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kopecky, Petr $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Tencer, Tomas $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Pazout, Jaroslav $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Belohlavek, Jan $u 2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Duska, Frantisek $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Krajcova, Adela $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Waldauf, Petr $u Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00002258 $t Intensive care medicine $x 1432-1238 $g Roč. 49, č. 11 (2023), s. 1283-1292
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37698594 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240610121333 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2049457 $s 1210551
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 49 $c 11 $d 1283-1292 $e 20230912 $i 1432-1238 $m Intensive care medicine $n Intensive Care Med $x MED00002258
GRA    __
$a NV18-06-00417 $p Agentura Pro Zdravotnický Výzkum České Republiky
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240109

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...