-
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....
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu randomizované kontrolované studie, časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
NV18-06-00417
Agentura Pro Zdravotnický Výzkum České Republiky
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
- MeSH
- amiodaron * terapeutické užití MeSH
- antiarytmika terapeutické užití MeSH
- fibrilace síní * terapie MeSH
- funkce levé komory srdeční MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- propafenon terapeutické užití MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- septický šok * komplikace farmakoterapie MeSH
- tepový objem MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
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