-
Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine Jul 2019Although amiodarone is considered the most effective antiarrhythmic agent, its use is limited by a wide variety of potential toxicities. The purpose of this review is to...
Although amiodarone is considered the most effective antiarrhythmic agent, its use is limited by a wide variety of potential toxicities. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive "bench to bedside" overview of the ways amiodarone influences thyroid function. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other clinically relevant studies. The search was limited to English-language reports published between 1950 and 2017. Amiodarone was searched using the terms adverse effects, hypothyroidism, myxedema, hyperthyroidism, thyroid storm, atrial fibrillation, ventricular arrhythmia, and electrical storm. Google and Google scholar as well as bibliographies of identified articles were reviewed for additional references. We included 163 germane references in this review. Because amiodarone is one of the most frequently prescribed antiarrhythmic drugs in the United States, the mechanistic, diagnostic and therapeutic information provided is relevant for practicing clinicians in a wide range of medical specialties.
Topics: Amiodarone; Animals; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Thyroid Diseases; Thyroid Function Tests; Thyroid Gland
PubMed: 30309693
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2018.09.005 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2018Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DIILD) occurs as a result of numerous agents, but the risk often only becomes apparent after the marketing authorisation of such... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DIILD) occurs as a result of numerous agents, but the risk often only becomes apparent after the marketing authorisation of such agents.
METHODS
In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review, we aimed to evaluate and synthesise the current literature on DIILD.
RESULTS
Following a quality assessment, 156 full-text papers describing more than 6000 DIILD cases were included in the review. However, the majority of the papers were of low or very low quality in relation to the review question (78%). Thus, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, and descriptive review was undertaken instead. DIILD incidence rates varied between 4.1 and 12.4 cases/million/year. DIILD accounted for 3⁻5% of prevalent ILD cases. Cancer drugs, followed by rheumatology drugs, amiodarone and antibiotics, were the most common causes of DIILD. The radiopathological phenotype of DIILD varied between and within agents, and no typical radiological pattern specific to DIILD was identified. Mortality rates of over 50% were reported in some studies. Severity at presentation was the most reliable predictor of mortality. Glucocorticoids (GCs) were commonly used to treat DIILD, but no prospective studies examined their effect on outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall high-quality evidence in DIILD is lacking, and the current review will inform larger prospective studies to investigate the diagnosis and management of DIILD.
PubMed: 30326612
DOI: 10.3390/jcm7100356 -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Apr 2020Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a condition with increased intracranial pressure of unknown etiology. Its presenting symptoms include persistent headache,...
BACKGROUND
Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a condition with increased intracranial pressure of unknown etiology. Its presenting symptoms include persistent headache, pulsatile tinnitus, and visual obscuration. It tends to occur in obese women of childbearing age, and its greatest risk is irreversible loss of vision. Some of the commonly used medications in dermatology, especially those for acne vulgaris, have been associated with IIH. However, the creation of specific risk categories for drugs as a guide for clinicians has never been performed.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to critically assess all published cases of IIH and identify high-risk drugs associated with drug-induced intracranial hypertension (DIIH), to assist dermatologists and other physicians with patient education and monitoring of symptoms of secondary intracranial hypertension.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review Databases were searched for all cases of IIH thought to be drug-related between January 1900 and June 2019. A total of 5117 articles were identified, and 235 articles were found to be relevant. All cases were assessed to satisfy the modified Dandy criteria for diagnosis of IIH, and the likelihood of each case being a 'definite' adverse drug reaction (ADR) was determined using the Koh algorithm for ADR. An association category (from weakly associated [Category I] to strongly associated [Category V]) was assigned based on the number of cases meeting these two criteria.
RESULTS
There were 259 verifiable cases of DIIH. Vitamin A derivatives, tetracycline-class antibiotics, recombinant growth hormone, and lithium were found to be most strongly associated with DIIH (Categories IV and V). Corticosteroids were moderately associated with DIIH (Category III). Drugs that were weakly associated with DIIH (Categories I and II) include cyclosporine, progestin-only contraceptives, combined oral contraceptives, second- and third-generation fluoroquinolones, sulfenazone, gonadotropin-releasing hormones and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist, nalidixic acid, amiodarone, stanozolol, danazol, divalproic acid, sulfasalazine, ketoconazole, and ustekinumab.
CONCLUSION
We suggest using the term 'drug-induced intracranial hypertension' (DIIH) and propose a set of diagnostic criteria for DIIH. Our review attempts to identify DIIH-associated drugs based on a strict diagnostic and drug-causality algorithm, then stratify them into appropriate risks categories. This may ultimately assist physicians in counselling patients about the risk of DIIH when prescribing medications and recognizing this uncommon yet sight-threatening condition.
Topics: Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension
PubMed: 31741184
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-019-00485-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been...
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence. This is an update of a review previously published in 2006, 2012 and 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation in people who had recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase in January 2019, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP in February 2019. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored, spontaneously or by any intervention. We excluded postoperative atrial fibrillation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We pooled studies, if appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up or the nearest time point.
MAIN RESULTS
This update included one new study (100 participants) and excluded one previously included study because of double publication. Finally, we included 59 RCTs comprising 20,981 participants studying quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone and sotalol. Overall, mean follow-up was 10.2 months.All-cause mortalityHigh-certainty evidence from five RCTs indicated that treatment with sotalol was associated with a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.81; participants = 1882). The number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for sotalol was 102 participants treated for one year to have one additional death. Low-certainty evidence from six RCTs suggested that risk of mortality may be higher in people taking quinidine (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.77; participants = 1646). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased RR for mortality but with very wide CIs for metoprolol (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.05, 2 RCTs, participants = 562) and amiodarone (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.99, 2 RCTs, participants = 444), compared with placebo.We found little or no difference in mortality with dofetilide (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence) or dronedarone (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/no treatment. There were few data on mortality for disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, making impossible a reliable estimation for those drugs.Withdrawals due to adverse eventsAll analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse effects compared to placebo or no treatment (quinidine: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.78; disopyramide: RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.95 to 14.24; propafenone: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.46; flecainide: RR 15.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 260.19; metoprolol: RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.15; amiodarone: RR 6.70, 95% CI 1.91 to 23.45; dofetilide: RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.18; dronedarone: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85; sotalol: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.11). Certainty of the evidence for this outcome was low for disopyramide, amiodarone, dofetilide and flecainide; moderate to high for the remaining drugs.ProarrhythmiaVirtually all studied antiarrhythmics showed increased proarrhythmic effects (counting both tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias attributable to treatment) (quinidine: RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 4.41; disopyramide: no data; flecainide: RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 17.77; metoprolol: RR 18.14, 95% CI 2.42 to 135.66; amiodarone: RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.96; dofetilide: RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 22.76; dronedarone: RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.98; sotalol: RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.16 to 5.83); with the exception of propafenone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.47) for which the certainty of evidence was very low and we were uncertain about the effect. Certainty of the evidence for this outcome for the other drugs was moderate to high.StrokeEleven studies reported stroke outcomes with quinidine, disopyramide, flecainide, amiodarone, dronedarone and sotalol. High-certainty evidence from two RCTs suggested that dronedarone may be associated with reduced risk of stroke (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; participants = 5872). This result is attributed to one study dominating the meta-analysis and has yet to be reproduced in other studies. There was no apparent effect on stroke rates with the other antiarrhythmics.Recurrence of atrial fibrillationModerate- to high-certainty evidence, with the exception of disopyramide which was low-certainty evidence, showed that all analysed drugs, including metoprolol, reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (quinidine: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; disopyramide: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; propafenone: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.74; flecainide: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77; metoprolol: RR 0.83 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; amiodarone: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58; dofetilide: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; dronedarone: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; sotalol: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.87). Despite this reduction, atrial fibrillation still recurred in 43% to 67% of people treated with antiarrhythmics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence of increased mortality associated with sotalol treatment, and low-certainty evidence suggesting increased mortality with quinidine, when used for maintaining sinus rhythm in people with atrial fibrillation. We found few data on mortality in people taking disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, so it was not possible to make a reliable estimation of the mortality risk for these drugs. However, we did find moderate-certainty evidence of marked increases in proarrhythmia and adverse effects with flecainide.Overall, there is evidence showing that antiarrhythmic drugs increase adverse events, increase proarrhythmic events and some antiarrhythmics may increase mortality. Conversely, although they reduce recurrences of atrial fibrillation, there is no evidence of any benefit on other clinical outcomes, compared with placebo or no treatment.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31483500
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005049.pub5 -
Journal of Cardiac Surgery Oct 2021Vasoplegic syndrome (VPS) is defined as systemic hypotension due to profound vasodilatation and loss of systemic vascular resistance (SVR), despite normal or increased...
BACKGROUND
Vasoplegic syndrome (VPS) is defined as systemic hypotension due to profound vasodilatation and loss of systemic vascular resistance (SVR), despite normal or increased cardiac index, and characterized by inadequate response to standard doses of vasopressors, and increased morbidity and mortality. It occurs in 9%-44% of cardiac surgery patients after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The underlying pathophysiology following CPB consists of resistance to vasopressors (inactivation of Ca voltage gated channels) on the one hand and excessive activation of vasodilators (SIRS, iNOS, and low AVP) on the other. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, heparin, low cardiac reserve (EF < 35%), symptomatic congestive heart failure, and diabetes mellitus are the perioperative risk factors for VPS after cardiac surgery in adults. Till date, there is no consensus about the outcome-oriented therapeutic management of VPS. Vasopressors such as norepinephrine (NE; 0.025-0.2 µg/kg/min) and vasopressin (0.06 U/min or 6 U/h median dose) are the first choice for the treatment. The adjuvant therapy (hydrocortisone, calcium, vitamin C, and thiamine) and rescue therapy (methylene blue [MB] and hydroxocobalamin) are also considered when perfusion goals (meanarterial pressure [MAP] > 60-70 mmHg) are not achieved with nor-epinephrine and/or vasopressin.
AIMS
The aims of this systematic review are to collect all the clinically relevant data to describe the VPS, its potential risk factors, pathophysiology after CPB, and to assess the efficacy, safety, and outcome of the therapeutic management with catecholamine and non-catecholamine vasopressors employed for refractory vasoplegia after cardiac surgery. Also, to elucidate the current and practical approach for management of VPS after cardiac surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
"PubMed," "Google," and "Medline" weresearched, and over 150 recent relevant articles including RCTs, clinical studies, meta-analysis, reviews, case reports, case series and Cochrane data were analyzed for this systematic review. The filter was applied specificallyusing key words like VPS after cardiac surgery, perioperative VPS following CPB, morbidity, and mortality in VPS after cardiac surgery, vasopressors for VPS that improve outcomes, VPS after valve surgery, VPS after CABG surgery, VPS following complex congenital cardiac anomalies corrective surgery, rescue therapy for VPS, adjuvant therapy for VPS, definition of VPS, outcome in VPS after cardiac surgery, etiopathology of VPS following CPB. This review did not require any ethical approval or consent from the patients.
RESULTS
Despite the recent advances in therapy, the mortality remains as high as 30%-50%. NE has been recommended the most frequent used vasopressor for VPS. It restores and maintain the MAP and provides the outcome benefits. Vasopressin rescue therapy is an alternative approach, if catecholamines and fluid infusions fail to improve hemodynamics. It effectively increases vascular tone and lowers CO, and significantly decreases the 30 days mortality. Hence, suggested a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery VPS. Terlipressin (1.3μg/kg/h), a longer acting and more specific vasoconstrictor prevents the development of VPS after CPB in patients treated with ACE-I. MB significantly reduces morbidity and mortality of VPS. The Preoperative MB (1%, 2mg/kg/30min, 1h before surgery) administration in high risk (on ACE-I) patients for VPS undergoing CABG surgery, provides 100% protection against VPS, and early of MB significantly reduces operative mortality, and recommended as a rescue therapy for VPS. Hydroxocobalamin (5 g) has been recommended as a rescue agent in VPS refractory to multiple vasopressors. A combination of ascorbic acid (6 g), hydrocortisone (200 mg/day), and thiamine (400 mg/day) as an adjuvant therapy significantly reduces the vasopressors requirement, and provides mortality and morbidity benefits.
CONCLUSION
Currently, the VPS is frequently encountered (9%-40%) in cardiac surgical patients with predisposing patient-specific risk factors and combined with inflammatory response to CPB. Multidrug therapy (NE, MB, AVP, ATII, terlipressin, hydroxocobalamin) targeting multiple receptor systems is recommended in refractory VPS. A combination of high dosage of ascorbic acid, hydrocortisone and thiamine has been used successfully as adjunctive therapyto restore the MAP. We also advocate for the early use of multiagent vasopressors therapy and catecholamine sparing adjunctive agents to restore the systemic perfusion pressure with a goal of preventing the progressive refractory VPS.
Topics: Adult; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hydroxocobalamin; Leprostatic Agents; Vasoplegia
PubMed: 34251716
DOI: 10.1111/jocs.15805 -
International Journal of Cardiology Oct 2016The 2015 Guidelines for Resuscitation recommend amiodarone as the antiarrhythmic drug of choice in the treatment of resistant ventricular fibrillation or pulseless... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The 2015 Guidelines for Resuscitation recommend amiodarone as the antiarrhythmic drug of choice in the treatment of resistant ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. We reviewed the effects of amiodarone on survival and neurological outcome after cardiac arrest.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from 1940 to March 2016 without language restrictions. Randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies were selected.
RESULTS
Our search initially identified 1663 studies, 1458 from MEDLINE and 205 from Cochrane Library. Of them, 4 randomized controlled studies and 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for further review. Three randomized studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission (OR=1.402, 95% CI: 1.068-1.840, Z=2.43, P=0.015), but neither survival to hospital discharge (RR=0.850, 95% CI: 0.631-1.144, Z=1.07, P=0.284) nor neurological outcome compared to placebo or nifekalant (OR=1.114, 95% CI: 0.923-1.345, Z=1.12, P=0.475).
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone significantly improves survival to hospital admission. However there is no benefit of amiodarone in survival to discharge or neurological outcomes compared to placebo or other antiarrhythmics.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Arrest; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Admission; Patient Discharge; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate
PubMed: 27434349
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.138 -
Cureus Nov 2023A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in... (Review)
Review
A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in children and infants (one hour to 17 years of age) with no structural heart disease by PRISMA guideline. Our team conducted an exhaustive systematic literature review (SLR), utilizing an extensive search methodology across recognized databases like PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. We included 10 scholarly articles that satisfied our rigorous selection criteria including systematic reviews/meta-analysis, and randomized control trials, shedding light on treatment with amiodarone and adenosine for SVT in pediatric patients. There is no first- or second-line treatment for SVT in pediatrics, and drug effectiveness can vary significantly between patients. Adenosine has a shorter half-life than other drugs, instead, it is safer and more valuable when an electrocardiogram is uncertain, it is recommended as an acute management, and it continues as the first-line option for paroxysmal SVT. Amiodarone management patients with acute STV within, its use showed better results when administered 48 hours after diagnosis. Furthermore, it is recommended to reduce the incidence of junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET), by pre-operative prophylaxis, also for chronic control in this and other types of SVT. In none of the evaluated studies were documented significant adverse effects in pediatric patients. Side effects that did occur were mild and easily managed. The studies also emphasize that although both amiodarone and adenosine can successfully convert SVT to sinus rhythm, better results have been observed when using combined therapies of each recommended medication. Therefore, more randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews are needed to solidify and possibly standardize an effective and safe pharmacological treatment for SVT and its types in pediatric patients.
PubMed: 38073952
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48507 -
CJC Open Jan 2021Observational studies have identified inconsistent associations between chronic use of amiodarone and cancer-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies have identified inconsistent associations between chronic use of amiodarone and cancer-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate cancer risk among patients receiving amiodarone.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to May 1, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with follow-up ≥2 years that compared amiodarone (any dose) to any comparator (placebo, active pharmacologic or interventional comparator, or usual care), and reported ≥1 outcome of interest. We contacted authors of published chronic amiodarone trials for potentially unreported cancer outcomes. The primary outcome was cancer incidence. Secondary outcomes were cancer-related death and site-specific cancers. We determined risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity using . We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses for amiodarone indication, amiodarone dose, duration of therapy, and trial-level risk of bias.
RESULTS
From 1439 articles, we included 5 RCTs (n = 4357). Mean follow-up duration ranged from 21 to 37 months. We included previously unpublished cancer outcome data from 1 RCT. Our primary outcome was not reported in any RCT. There was no significant difference in cancer-related death between amiodarone (1.69%) and the comparator (1.75%) (risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.63; = 0%). There were no significant interactions from our subgroup or sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic amiodarone use did not increase cancer-related deaths. Data from RCTs do not support an increased risk of cancer-related harms with amiodarone use, and these concerns should not deter use of amiodarone when indicated.
PubMed: 33458637
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.09.013 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2014Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the literature, but for the purposes of this review we have included studies where atrial fibrillation may have occurred up to 7 days previously. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. The condition resolves spontaneously within 24 to 48 hours in more than 50% of people; however, many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent embolism, for conversion to sinus rhythm, and to control heart rate in people with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, metoprolol, nebivolol, propafenone, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Safety
PubMed: 25430048
DOI: No ID Found -
Resuscitation Oct 2016Guidelines for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) with shockable rhythm recommend amiodarone, while lidocaine may be used if amiodarone is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guidelines for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) with shockable rhythm recommend amiodarone, while lidocaine may be used if amiodarone is not available. Recent underpowered evidence suggests that amiodarone, lidocaine or placebo are equivalent with respect to survival at hospital discharge, but amiodarone and lidocaine showed higher hospital admission rates. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy of amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo.
METHODS
We included studies published in PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until May 15th, 2016. The primary outcomes were survival at hospital admission and discharge in OOH-CA patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCT) according to resuscitation with amiodarone vs lidocaine vs placebo. If feasible, secondary analysis was performed including in the analysis also patients with in-hospital CA and data from non-RCT.
RESULTS
A total of seven findings were included in the metanalysis (three RCTs, 4 non-RCTs). Amiodarone was as beneficial as lidocaine for survival at hospital admission (primary analysis odds ratio-OR 0.86-1.23, p=0.40) and discharge (primary analysis OR 0.87-1.30, p=0.56; secondary analysis OR 0.86-1.27, p=0.67). As compared with placebo, survival at hospital admission was higher both for amiodarone (primary analysis OR 1.12-1.54, p<0.0001; secondary analysis OR 1.07-1.45, p<0.005) and lidocaine (secondary analysis only OR 1.14-1.58, p=0.0005). With regards to hospital discharge there were no differences between placebo and amiodarone (primary outcome OR 0.98-1.44, p=0.08; secondary outcome OR 0.92-1.33, p=0.28) or lidocaine (secondary outcome only OR 0.97-1.45, p=0.10).
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone and lidocaine equally improve survival at hospital admission as compared with placebo. However, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine improve long-term outcome.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Hospitalization; Humans; Lidocaine; Long Term Adverse Effects; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 27496262
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.07.235