-
JACC. Heart Failure Feb 2022This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.
BACKGROUND
The estimated treatment effects of various combinations of contemporary HF medical therapies are not well characterized.
METHODS
We performed a systematic network meta-analysis, using MEDLINE/EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials published between January 1987 and January 2020. We included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv-mecarbil. The primary outcome was all-cause death. We estimated the life-years gained in 2 HF populations (BIOSTAT-CHF [BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure] and ASIAN-HF [Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Registry]).
RESULTS
We identified 75 relevant trials representing 95,444 participants. A combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was most effective in reducing all-cause death (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.31-0.49); followed by ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53); and ARNi, BB, and MRA (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.36-0.54). Results were similar for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.29-0.46 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and omecamtiv-mecarbil; and HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34-0.55 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat). The estimated additional number of life-years gained for a 70-year-old patient on ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was 5.0 years (2.5-7.5 years) compared with no treatment in secondary analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the estimated aggregate benefit is greatest for a combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i.
Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 34895860
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2021.09.004 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Nov 2014Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.
METHODS
Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.
RESULTS
The only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal studies, at the risk of seizures. Lipid emulsion therapy. Lipid emulsion was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal models of intravenous verapamil poisoning, but not in models of oral verapamil poisoning. Other studies. Studies on decontamination, atropine, glucagon, pacemakers, levosimendan, and plasma exchange reported variable results, and the methodologies used limit their interpretation. No trial was documented in humans poisoned with calcium channel blockers for Bay K8644, CGP 28932, digoxin, cyclodextrin, liposomes, bicarbonate, carnitine, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, PK 11195, or triiodothyronine. Case reports were only found for charcoal hemoperfusion, dialysis, intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella device and methylene blue.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning is supported by low-quality evidence drawn from a heterogeneous and heavily biased literature. High-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support were the interventions supported by the strongest evidence, although the evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Guidelines as Topic; Hospitalization; Humans; Insulin; Length of Stay; Observational Studies as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25283255
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2014.965827 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2015Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical function. Risk factors for atrial fibrillation include increasing age, male sex, co-existing cardiac and thyroid disease, pyrexial illness, electrolyte imbalance, cancer, and co-existing infection.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of oral medical treatments to control heart rate in people with chronic (defined as longer than 1 week for this review) non-valvular atrial fibrillation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 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 four 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: beta-blockers (rate-limiting, with or without digoxin), calcium-channel blockers (with or without digoxin), and digoxin.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Digoxin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25994013
DOI: No ID Found -
Cardiology Journal 2016There is growing controversy regarding the association between digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to systematically review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is growing controversy regarding the association between digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to systematically review digoxin use and risk of mortality in patients with AF.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, GoogleScholar, CINAHL, meeting abstracts, presentations, and Cochrane central databases were searched from inception through December 2014, without language restrictions. For a study to be selected, it had to report the risk of mortality associated with digoxin use in AF patients as an outcome measure. Data were extracted by 2 independent authors. Evidence tables were created.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (6 post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials) with 111,978 digoxin users and 389,643 non-digoxin users were included. In a random effects model, patients treated with digoxin had a 27% increased risk of all-cause mortality (pooled HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.19-1.36) and 21% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (pooled HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.30) compared with those who did not use digoxin. In a random effects model, the association of digoxin with all-cause mortality was stronger for AF patients without heart failure (pooled HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.25-1.73) than AF patients with heart failure (pooled HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07-1.36, interaction p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Digoxin use in AF is associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. The effect size was larger for AF patients without heart failure than AF patients with heart failure. The study suggests further directed analyses to study the effect that is suggested by this meta-analysis, especially in AF without heart failure.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Digoxin; Global Health; Humans; Survival Rate
PubMed: 27064796
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0016 -
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 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2015To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, reference lists, and ongoing studies according to a prospectively registered design (
PROSPERO
CRD42014010783), including all studies published from 1960 to July 2014 that examined treatment with digoxin compared with control (placebo or no treatment).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Unadjusted and adjusted data pooled according to study design, analysis method, and risk of bias.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome (all cause mortality) and secondary outcomes (including admission to hospital) were meta-analysed with random effects modelling.
RESULTS
52 studies were systematically reviewed, comprising 621,845 patients. Digoxin users were 2.4 years older than control (weighted difference 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.6), with lower ejection fraction (33% v 42%), more diabetes, and greater use of diuretics and anti-arrhythmic drugs. Meta-analysis included 75 study analyses, with a combined total of 4,006,210 patient years of follow-up. Compared with control, the pooled risk ratio for death with digoxin was 1.76 in unadjusted analyses (1.57 to 1.97), 1.61 in adjusted analyses (1.31 to 1.97), 1.18 in propensity matched studies (1.09 to 1.26), and 0.99 in randomised controlled trials (0.93 to 1.05). Meta-regression confirmed that baseline differences between treatment groups had a significant impact on mortality associated with digoxin, including markers of heart failure severity such as use of diuretics (P=0.004). Studies with better methods and lower risk of bias were more likely to report a neutral association of digoxin with mortality (P<0.001). Across all study types, digoxin led to a small but significant reduction in all cause hospital admission (risk ratio 0.92, 0.89 to 0.95; P<0.001; n=29,525).
CONCLUSIONS
Digoxin is associated with a neutral effect on mortality in randomised trials and a lower rate of admissions to hospital across all study types. Regardless of statistical analysis, prescription biases limit the value of observational data.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiotonic Agents; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26321114
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4451 -
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 -
PloS One 2017Cardiac glycosides (CGs) including digitalis, digoxin and digitoxin are used in the treatment of congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Pre-clinical studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiac glycosides (CGs) including digitalis, digoxin and digitoxin are used in the treatment of congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Pre-clinical studies have investigated the anti-neoplastic properties of CGs since 1960s. Epidemiological studies concerning the association between CGs use and cancer risk yielded inconsistent results. We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effects of CGs on cancer risk and mortality.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, Medline and Web of Knowledge were searched for identifying relevant studies. Summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included 14 case-control studies and 15 cohort studies published between 1976 and 2016 including 13 cancer types. Twenty-four studies reported the association between CGs and cancer risk and six reported the association between CGs and mortality of cancer patients. Using CGs was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer (RR = 1.330, 95% CI: 1.247-1.419). Subgroup analysis showed that using CGs increased the risk of ER+ve breast cancer but not ER-ve. Using CGs wasn't associated with prostate cancer risk (RR = 1.015, 95% CI: 0.868-1.87). However, CGs decreased the risk in long term users and showed a protective role in decreasing the risk of advanced stages. CGs use was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.248-1.46) but not cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.075, 95% CI: 0.968-1.194).
CONCLUSION
The anti-tumor activity of CGs observed in pre-clinical studies requires high concentrations which can't be normally tolerated in humans. However, the estrogen-like activity of CGs could be responsible for increasing the risk of certain types of tumors.
Topics: Cardiac Glycosides; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Observational Studies as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28591151
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178611 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Apr 2023Scorpion envenomation is associated with several complications. One of the most serious complications is the cardiac involvement in the form of myocarditis that remains...
BACKGROUND
Scorpion envenomation is associated with several complications. One of the most serious complications is the cardiac involvement in the form of myocarditis that remains the main reason for mortalities associated with scorpion envenomation. The present review aims to elucidate clinical and paraclinical findings associated with scorpion-related myocarditis, and to explore different management strategies and subsequent outcomes.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles related to keywords of myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation up to May 1, 2022. Each article was carefully reviewed by two independent researchers. In case of disagreement for inclusion, we sought a third researcher opinion.
RESULTS
A total of 703 cases from 30 case reports and 34 case series were included in our review. Myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation was usually reported in children presenting with cardiopulmonary symptoms including pulmonary edema (60.7%) and shock or hypotension (45.8%). The most common ECG findings are sinus tachycardia (82%) followed by ST-T changes (64.6%). The management typically included inotropes (especially dobutamine), prazosin, diuretics, nitroglycerine and digoxin, when indicated. Mechanical ventilation was required in 36.7% of the patients. Mortality in confirmed scorpion-related myocarditis cases is estimated at 7.3%. Almost all survived cases showed rapid recovery and improvement in the left ventricular function.
CONCLUSION
Even though myocarditis associated with scorpion envenomation is rare, it remains a serious and in some of cases a fatal consequence of scorpion sting. In case of relative presentations, particularly in envenomed children, diagnosis of myocarditis should be considered. Early screening using serial cardiac markers and echocardiography can guide the treatment. Prompt treatment that focuses on cardiogenic shock and pulmonary edema usually results in a favorable outcome.
Topics: Child; Humans; Animals; Scorpion Stings; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Edema; Dobutamine; Respiration, Artificial; Scorpions
PubMed: 37018229
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011219 -
Cureus Jul 2022The emergency treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves utilizing two strategies. The first strategy normally involves permitting the atrial fibrillation to... (Review)
Review
An Integrative Comparative Study Between Digoxin and Amiodarone as an Emergency Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Evidence of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The emergency treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves utilizing two strategies. The first strategy normally involves permitting the atrial fibrillation to persevere as the ventricular rate is controlled. The other method involves utilizing anti-arrhythmic drugs in cardioversion and attempting to maintain sinus rhythm. Different pharmacological treatments, including digoxin and amiodarone, have been used to manage AF. A literature review on amiodarone and digoxin in the treatment of AF among patients with heart failure (HF) has shown that both drugs have potential risks. Therefore, we are conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of amiodarone and digoxin in the treatment of AF among patients with evidence of HF. A literature search of relevant articles was conducted on six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) from 2000 to 2022. The search yielded seven studies that had met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis of four studies showed that there was no significant difference in the reduction of heart rate after treatment with either amiodarone or digoxin (mean difference (MD): -5.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): -9.53 to -1.34; I = 25%; p = 0.26). On the other hand, the statistical analysis showed that amiodarone had a better effect on the conversion to sinus rhythm than digoxin (63% versus 35%, respectively). Based on evidence from our meta-analysis, the clinical effect of amiodarone and digoxin in the emergency treatment of AF on heart rate control was unclear. However, amiodarone has a significant impact on the restoration of sinus rhythm compared with digoxin and can be considered the first-line drug regimen in conversion to sinus rhythm for AF patients with evidence of heart failure. However, the use of amiodarone and digoxin is complicated by adverse events and all-cause mortality.
PubMed: 35971374
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26800