-
Clinical Cardiology Jun 2023There are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF).
HYPOTHESIS
We hypothesized that dronedarone and sotalol, two commonly prescribed VW class III AADs with class II properties, have different safety and efficacy effects in patients with nonpermanent AF.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 15, 2021 (NCT05279833). Clinical trials and observational studies that evaluated safety and efficacy of dronedarone or sotalol in adults with AF were included. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to quantify comparative safety and efficacy. Where feasible, we performed sensitivity analyses by including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
Of 3581 records identified through database searches, 37 unique studies (23 RCTs, 13 observational studies, and 1 nonrandomized trial) were included in the NMA. Dronedarone was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus sotalol (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% credible interval, CrI: 0.19, 0.74]). The association was numerically similar in the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.46 [95% CrI: 0.21, 1.02]). AF recurrence and cardiovascular death results were not significantly different between dronedarone and sotalol in all-studies and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
The NMA findings indicate that, across all clinical trials and observational studies included, dronedarone compared with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, but with no difference in AF recurrence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Dronedarone; Network Meta-Analysis; Sotalol
PubMed: 37025083
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24011 -
Kardiologia Polska Oct 2020Appropriate pharmacotherapy during advanced resuscitation procedures may affect the return of spontaneous circulation. Current guidelines on cardiopulmonary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Appropriate pharmacotherapy during advanced resuscitation procedures may affect the return of spontaneous circulation. Current guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend amiodarone for shock‑refractory cardiac arrest or when lidocaine is not available.
AIMS
The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the available literature and to conduct a meta‑‑analysis to determine the effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcome after shock‑refractory cardiac arrest.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened randomized and quasi‑randomized controlled trials as well as cohort and cross‑sectional trials evaluating amiodarone or lidocaine for the treatment of adults with cardiac arrest.
RESULTS
After screening 682 unique references, 8 were selected for this meta‑analysis. A higher number of cases with return of spontaneous circulation was observed in the amiodarone group compared with the lidocaine group (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.21; P = 0.75). A similar relationship was observed for survival to hospital discharge (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92-1.38; P = 0.26), as well as survival with favorable neurological outcome (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39; P = 0.35).
CONCLUSIONS
We found no statistically significant survival benefit of resuscitation with amiodarone compared with lidocaine. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to identify which antiarrhythmic drug should be use in shock‑refractory cardiac arrest.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Lidocaine; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
PubMed: 32627999
DOI: 10.33963/KP.15483 -
Cureus Mar 2024The objective of this study was to compare the impact of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcomes following cardiac arrest. A systematic review of... (Review)
Review
The objective of this study was to compare the impact of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcomes following cardiac arrest. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as cohort and cross-sectional trials was undertaken, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Potential relevant studies were searched in databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from the beginning of databases to February 15, 2024. Outcomes assessed in this study were survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission or 24 hours, favorable neurological outcomes, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). A total of seven studies (five observational and two RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 19,081 patients with cardiac arrest. Pooled analysis showed no difference between amiodarone and lidocaine in terms of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio (OR): 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75 to 1.04), ROSC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.05, p-value: 0.25), favorable neurological outcomes (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.17, p-value: 0.38), and survival to 24 hours (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.21, p-value: 0.31). While lidocaine demonstrated a slight survival advantage, the differences were statistically insignificant. Similarly, no significant variations were observed in ROSC incidence, neurological outcomes, or survival at 24 hours. These findings align with current guidelines but underscore the necessity for further rigorous RCTs to provide conclusive recommendations.
PubMed: 38623114
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56037 -
Journal of the American Heart... Dec 2017There is no consensus on the most effective and best tolerated first-line antiarrhythmic treatment for fetal tachyarrhythmia. The purpose of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is no consensus on the most effective and best tolerated first-line antiarrhythmic treatment for fetal tachyarrhythmia. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy, safety, and fetal-maternal tolerance of first-line monotherapies for fetal supraventricular tachycardia and atrial flutter.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted through January 2017. Only studies that made a direct comparison between first-line treatments of fetal tachyarrhythmia were included. Outcomes of interest were termination of fetal tachyarrhythmia, fetal demise, and maternal complications. Ten studies met inclusion criteria, with 537 patients. Overall, 291 patients were treated with digoxin, 137 with flecainide, 102 with sotalol, and 7 with amiodarone. Digoxin achieved a lower rate of supraventricular tachycardia termination compared with flecainide (odds ratio [OR]: 0.773; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.605-0.987; I=34%). In fetuses with hydrops fetalis, digoxin had lower rates of tachycardia termination compared with flecainide (OR: 0.412; 95% CI, 0.268-0.632; I=0%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of maternal side effects between digoxin and flecainide groups (OR: 1.134; 95% CI, 0.129-9.935; I=80.79%). The incidence of maternal side effects was higher in patients treated with digoxin compared with sotalol (OR: 3.148; 95% CI, 1.468-6.751; I=0%). There was no difference in fetal demise between flecainide and digoxin (OR: 0.767; 95% CI, 0.140-4.197; I=44%).
CONCLUSIONS
Flecainide may be more effective treatment than digoxin as a first-line treatment for fetal supraventricular tachycardia.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Echocardiography; Female; Fetal Diseases; Fetal Therapies; Flecainide; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 29246961
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007164 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia May 2022New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically unwell patients. NOAF can lead to worsening haemodynamic compromise, heart... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically unwell patients. NOAF can lead to worsening haemodynamic compromise, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and increased mortality. The aim of this systematic review and narrative synthesis is to evaluate the non-pharmacological and pharmacological management strategies for NOAF in critically unwell patients.
METHODS
Of 1782 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion, including 4 RCTs and 26 observational studies. Efficacy of direct current cardioversion, amiodarone, β-adrenergic receptor antagonists, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, magnesium, and less commonly used agents such as ibutilide are reported.
RESULTS
Cardioversion rates of 48% were reported for direct current cardioversion; however, re-initiation of NOAF was as high as 23.4%. Amiodarone was the most commonly reported intervention with cardioversion rates ranging from 18% to 96% followed by β-antagonists with cardioversion rates from 40% to 92%. Amiodarone was more effective than diltiazem (odds ratio [OR]=1.91, P=0.32) at cardioversion. Short-acting β-antagonists esmolol and landiolol were more effective compared with diltiazem for cardioversion (OR=3.55, P=0.04) and HR control (OR=3.2, P<0.001).
CONCLUSION
There was significant variation between studies with regard to the definition of successful cardioversion and heart rate control, making comparisons between studies and interventions difficult. Future RCTs comparing individual anti-arrhythmic agents, in particular magnesium, amiodarone, and β-antagonists, and studying the role of anticoagulation in critically unwell patients are required. There is also an urgent need for a core outcome dataset for studies of new onset atrial fibrillation to allow comparisons between different anti-arrhythmic strategies.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019121739.
Topics: Adult; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Diltiazem; Electric Countershock; Humans; Magnesium
PubMed: 34916053
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.11.016 -
JACC. Clinical Electrophysiology Jun 2023There is variability in treatment modalities for premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), including use of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy or catheter ablation (CA).... (Review)
Review
There is variability in treatment modalities for premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), including use of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy or catheter ablation (CA). This study reviewed evidence comparing CA vs AADs for the treatment of PVCs. A systematic review was performed from the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials database, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register. Five studies (1 randomized controlled trial) enrolling 1,113 patients (57.9% female) were analyzed. Four of five studies recruited mainly patients with outflow tract PVCs. There was significant heterogeneity in AAD choice. Electroanatomic mapping was used in 3 of 5 studies. No studies documented intracardiac echocardiography or contact force-sensing catheter use. Acute procedural endpoints varied (2 of 5 targeted elimination of all PVCs). All studies had significant potential for bias. CA seemed superior to AADs for PVC recurrence, frequency, and burden. One study reported long-term symptoms (CA superior). Quality of life or cost-effectiveness was not reported. Complication and adverse event rates were 0% to 5.6% for CA and 9.5% to 21% for AADs. Future randomized controlled trials will assess CA vs AADs for patients with PVCs without structural heart disease (ECTOPIA [Elimination of Ventricular Premature Beats with Catheter Ablation versus Optimal Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment]), with impaired LVEF (PAPS [Prospective Assessment of Premature Ventricular Contractions Suppression in Cardiomyopathy] Pilot), and with structural heart disease (CAT-PVC [Catheter Ablation Versus Amiodarone for Therapy of Premature Ventricular Contractions in Patients With Structural Heart Disease]). In conclusion, CA seems to reduce recurrence, burden, and frequency of PVCs compared with AADs. There is a lack of data on patient- and health care-specific outcomes such as symptoms, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Several upcoming trials will offer important insights for management of PVCs.
Topics: Female; United States; Male; Humans; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Ventricular Premature Complexes; Australia; Heart Diseases; Catheter Ablation
PubMed: 37380322
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2023.01.035 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation (electrocardiogram sector is higher than baseline). Ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction is associated with high risk of mortality. The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic lidocaine in preventing death among people with myocardial infarction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 13 April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1986 to 13 April 2015). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 13 April 2013) and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction. We considered all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction as primary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model and conducted trial sequential analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 37 randomised controlled trials involving 11,948 participants. These trials compared lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention, disopyramide, mexiletine, tocainide, propafenone, amiodarone, dimethylammonium chloride, aprindine and pirmenol. Overall, trials were underpowered and had high risk of bias. Ninety-seven per cent of trials (36/37) were conducted without an a priori sample size estimation. Ten trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Trials were conducted in 17 countries, and intravenous intervention was the most frequent route of administration.In trials involving participants with proven or non-proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences regarding all-cause mortality (213/5879 (3.62%) vs 199/5848 (3.40%); RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; participants = 11727; studies = 18; I(2) = 15%); low-quality evidence), cardiac mortality (69/4184 (1.65%) vs 62/4093 (1.51%); RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.50; participants = 8277; studies = 12; I(2) = 12%; low-quality evidence) and prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation (76/5128 (1.48%) vs 103/4987 (2.01%); RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; participants = 10115; studies = 16; I(2) = 18%; low-quality evidence). In terms of sinus bradycardia, lidocaine effect is imprecise compared with effects of placebo or no intervention (55/1346 (4.08%) vs 49/1203 (4.07%); RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.80; participants = 2549; studies = 8; I(2) = 21%; very low-quality evidence). In trials involving only participants with proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (148/2747 (5.39%) vs 135/2506 (5.39%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; participants = 5253; studies = 16; I(2) = 9%; low-quality evidence). No significant differences were noted between lidocaine and any other antiarrhythmic drug in terms of all-cause mortality and ventricular fibrillation. Data on overall survival 30 days after myocardial infarction were not reported. Lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention increased risk of asystole (35/3393 (1.03%) vs 14/3443 (0.41%); RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.26; participants = 6826; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and dizziness/drowsiness (74/1259 (5.88%) vs 16/1274 (1.26%); RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.47; participants = 2533; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. Trial sequential analyses suggest that additional trials may not be needed for reliable conclusions to be drawn regarding these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane review found evidence of low quality to suggest that prophylactic lidocaine has very little or no effect on mortality or ventricular fibrillation in people with acute myocardial infarction. The safety profile is unclear. This conclusion is based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. However (disregarding the risk of bias), trial sequential analysis suggests that additional trials may not be needed to disprove an intervention effect of 20% relative risk reduction. Smaller risk reductions might require additional higher trials.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Humans; Lidocaine; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 26295202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008553.pub2 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Aug 2018Chagas disease is a neglected chronic condition caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, with high prevalence and burden in Latin America. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chagas disease is a neglected chronic condition caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, with high prevalence and burden in Latin America. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy, and amiodarone has been widely used for this purpose. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of amiodarone in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy.
METHODOLOGY
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS up to January 2018. Data from randomized and observational studies evaluating amiodarone use in Chagas cardiomyopathy were included. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Overall quality of evidence was accessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We included 9 studies (3 before-after studies, 5 case series and 1 randomized controlled trial). Two studies with a total of 38 patients had the full dataset, allowing individual patient data (IPD) analysis. In 24-hour Holter, amiodarone reduced the number of ventricular tachycardia episodes in 99.9% (95%CI 99.8%-100%), ventricular premature beats in 93.1% (95%CI 82%-97.4%) and the incidence of ventricular couplets in 79% (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.11-0.39). Studies not included in the IPD analysis showed a reduction of ventricular premature beats (5 studies), ventricular tachycardia (6 studies) and ventricular couplets (1 study). We pooled the incidence of adverse side effects with random effects meta-analysis; amiodarone was associated with corneal microdeposits (61.1%, 95%CI 19.0-91.3, 5 studies), gastrointestinal events (16.1%, 95%CI 6.61-34.2, 3 studies), sinus bradycardia (12.7%, 95%CI 3.71-35.5, 6 studies), dermatological events (10.6%, 95%CI 4.77-21.9, 3 studies) and drug discontinuation (7.68%, 95%CI 4.17-13.7, 5 studies). Quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone is effective in reducing ventricular arrhythmias, but there is no evidence for hard endpoints (sudden death, hospitalization). Although our findings support the use of amiodarone, it is important to balance the potential benefits and harms at the individual level for decision-making.
Topics: Amiodarone; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Chagas Cardiomyopathy
PubMed: 30125291
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006742 -
PloS One 2018During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the results of these reviews suggested that digoxin seems to increase the risk of all-cause mortality regardless of concomitant heart failure. Our objective was to assess the benefits and harms of digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter based on randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, BIOSIS for eligible trials comparing digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in October 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were heart failure, stroke, heart rate control, and conversion to sinus rhythm. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and chose the more conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
28 trials (n = 2223 participants) were included. All were at high risk of bias and reported only short-term follow-up. When digoxin was compared with all control interventions in one analysis, we found no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.82; TSA-adjusted confidence interval (CI), 0.02 to 31.2; I2 = 0%); serious adverse events (RR, 1.65; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.24 to 11.5; I2 = 0%); quality of life; heart failure (RR, 1.05; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 1141.8; I2 = 51%); and stroke (RR, 2.27; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 7887.3; I2 = 17%). Our analyses on acute heart rate control (within 6 hours of treatment onset) showed firm evidence of digoxin being superior compared with placebo (mean difference (MD), -12.0 beats per minute (bpm); TSA-adjusted CI, -17.2 to -6.76; I2 = 0%) and inferior compared with beta blockers (MD, 20.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, 14.2 to 27.2; I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses on acute heart rate control showed that digoxin was inferior compared with both calcium antagonists (MD, 21.0 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -30.3 to 72.3) and with amiodarone (MD, 14.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -0.58 to 30.0; I2 = 42%), but in both comparisons TSAs showed that we lacked information. Meta-analysis on acute conversion to sinus rhythm showed that digoxin compared with amiodarone reduced the probability of converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm, but TSA showed that we lacked information (RR, 0.54; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.13 to 2.21; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, heart failure, and stroke are unclear based on current evidence. Digoxin seems to be superior compared with placebo in reducing the heart rate, but inferior compared with beta blockers. The long-term effect of digoxin is unclear, as no trials reported long-term follow-up. More trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors assessing the clinical effects of digoxin are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016052935.
Topics: Aged; Amiodarone; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Comorbidity; Digoxin; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mortality; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29518134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193924 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Adult; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cause of Death; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Humans; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 26646017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008093.pub2