Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

The outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with propafenone compared to amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias are related to end-systolic left atrial volume

P. Waldauf, M. Porizka, J. Horejsek, M. Otahal, E. Svobodova, I. Jurisinova, M. Maly, T. Brozek, J. Rulisek, P. Trachta, T. Tencer, A. Krajcova, F. Duska, M. Balik

. 2024 ; 13 (5) : 414-422. [pub] 20240528

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, srovnávací studie, multicentrická studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24013859

Grantová podpora
Czech Health Research Council

AIMS: A recently published trial has shown no differences in outcomes between patients with new-onset supraventricular arrhythmia (SVA) in septic shock treated with either propafenone or amiodarone. However, these outcome data have not been evaluated in relation to the presence or absence of a dilated left atrium (LA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with SVA and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 35% were randomized to receive intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). They were divided into groups based on whether their end-systolic left atrial volume (LAVI) was ≥40 mL/m2. The subgroup outcomes assessed were survival at ICU discharge, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Propafenone cardioverted earlier (P = 0.009) and with fewer recurrences (P = 0.001) in the patients without LA enlargement (n = 133). Patients with LAVI < 40 mL/m2 demonstrated a mortality benefit of propafenone over the follow-up of 1 year [Cox regression, hazard ratio (HR) 0.6 (95% CI 0.4; 0.9), P = 0.014]. Patients with dilated LA (n = 37) achieved rhythm control earlier in amiodarone (P = 0.05) with similar rates of recurrences (P = 0.5) compared to propafenone. The outcomes for patients with LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m2 were less favourable with propafenone compared to amiodarone at 1 month [HR 3.6 (95% CI 1.03; 12.5), P = 0.045]; however, it did not reach statistical significance at 1 year [HR 1.9 (95% CI 0.8; 4.4), P = 0.138]. CONCLUSION: Patients with non-dilated LA who achieved rhythm control with propafenone in the setting of septic shock had better short-term and long-term outcomes than those treated with amiodarone, which seemed to be more effective in patients with LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03029169, registered on 24 January 2017.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24013859
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240905134238.0
007      
ta
008      
240725s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/ehjacc/zuae023 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38372622
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Waldauf, Petr $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague 10, Czechia
245    14
$a The outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with propafenone compared to amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias are related to end-systolic left atrial volume / $c P. Waldauf, M. Porizka, J. Horejsek, M. Otahal, E. Svobodova, I. Jurisinova, M. Maly, T. Brozek, J. Rulisek, P. Trachta, T. Tencer, A. Krajcova, F. Duska, M. Balik
520    9_
$a AIMS: A recently published trial has shown no differences in outcomes between patients with new-onset supraventricular arrhythmia (SVA) in septic shock treated with either propafenone or amiodarone. However, these outcome data have not been evaluated in relation to the presence or absence of a dilated left atrium (LA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with SVA and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 35% were randomized to receive intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). They were divided into groups based on whether their end-systolic left atrial volume (LAVI) was ≥40 mL/m2. The subgroup outcomes assessed were survival at ICU discharge, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Propafenone cardioverted earlier (P = 0.009) and with fewer recurrences (P = 0.001) in the patients without LA enlargement (n = 133). Patients with LAVI < 40 mL/m2 demonstrated a mortality benefit of propafenone over the follow-up of 1 year [Cox regression, hazard ratio (HR) 0.6 (95% CI 0.4; 0.9), P = 0.014]. Patients with dilated LA (n = 37) achieved rhythm control earlier in amiodarone (P = 0.05) with similar rates of recurrences (P = 0.5) compared to propafenone. The outcomes for patients with LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m2 were less favourable with propafenone compared to amiodarone at 1 month [HR 3.6 (95% CI 1.03; 12.5), P = 0.045]; however, it did not reach statistical significance at 1 year [HR 1.9 (95% CI 0.8; 4.4), P = 0.138]. CONCLUSION: Patients with non-dilated LA who achieved rhythm control with propafenone in the setting of septic shock had better short-term and long-term outcomes than those treated with amiodarone, which seemed to be more effective in patients with LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03029169, registered on 24 January 2017.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a propafenon $x terapeutické užití $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D011405
650    12
$a amiodaron $x terapeutické užití $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D000638
650    12
$a septický šok $x farmakoterapie $x patofyziologie $7 D012772
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    12
$a antiarytmika $x terapeutické užití $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D000889
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    12
$a srdeční síně $x patofyziologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $x účinky léků $7 D006325
650    12
$a supraventrikulární tachykardie $x farmakoterapie $x patofyziologie $7 D013617
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a tepový objem $x fyziologie $x účinky léků $7 D013318
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
700    1_
$a Porizka, Michal $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Horejsek, Jan $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Otahal, Michal $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Svobodova, Eva $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Jurisinova, Ivana $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Maly, Michal $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Brozek, Tomas $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Rulisek, Jan $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Trachta, Pavel $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU
700    1_
$a Tencer, Tomas $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague 10, Czechia
700    1_
$a Krajcova, Adela $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague 10, Czechia
700    1_
$a Duska, Frantisek $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague 10, Czechia
700    1_
$a Balik, Martin $u Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, U nemocnice 2, Prague 2, 12808, Czechia, EU $1 https://orcid.org/0000000318642143 $7 xx0075661
773    0_
$w MED00186154 $t European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care $x 2048-8734 $g Roč. 13, č. 5 (2024), s. 414-422
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38372622 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240725 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240905134232 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2143583 $s 1225725
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 13 $c 5 $d 414-422 $e 20240528 $i 2048-8734 $m European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care $n Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care $x MED00186154
GRA    __
$p Czech Health Research Council
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240725

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...