The outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with propafenone compared to amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias are related to end-systolic left atrial volume
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie, Anglie Médium print
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, srovnávací studie, multicentrická studie
Grantová podpora
Czech Health Research Council
PubMed
38372622
DOI
10.1093/ehjacc/zuae023
PII: 7610476
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Amiodarone, Atrial fibrillation, Cardioversion, Propafenone, Septic shock, Supraventricular arrhythmia,
- MeSH
- amiodaron * terapeutické užití aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- antiarytmika * terapeutické užití aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- propafenon * terapeutické užití aplikace a dávkování MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- septický šok * farmakoterapie patofyziologie MeSH
- srdeční síně * patofyziologie diagnostické zobrazování účinky léků MeSH
- supraventrikulární tachykardie * farmakoterapie patofyziologie MeSH
- tepový objem fyziologie účinky léků 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
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- amiodaron * MeSH
- antiarytmika * MeSH
- propafenon * MeSH
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
Beta-blockers as antiarrhythmics in septic shock: a light at the end of the tunnel?
Personalizing beta-blockade in septic shock: finding the right rhythm and rate for the right patient
ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT03029169