-
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 -
Optometry and Vision Science : Official... Jul 2020Amiodarone is an excellent antiarrhythmic medication; however, it has numerous systemic and ocular adverse effects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE
Amiodarone is an excellent antiarrhythmic medication; however, it has numerous systemic and ocular adverse effects.
PURPOSE
We aimed to improve our understanding of amiodarone and its ocular adverse effects by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of published case reports.
METHODS
This systematic review was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. We used the MEDLINE database, primarily through PubMed, and used keywords (amiodarone, eye, eye diseases, visual/ocular adverse effects/manifestations) to identify case reports of ocular adverse effects after amiodarone use. The initial search resulted in 92 total case reports. However, after excluding nonrelevant case reports, 25 cases were selected for the final analysis.
RESULTS
Among the patients in the 25 case reports, 18 were male (72%), and the median age was 66 ± 9.9 years. In 15 cases (60%), the patients reported halos around light and/or decrease in vision after amiodarone use. The most common ophthalmic examination findings were cornea verticillata/vortex keratopathy in 19 cases (76%), followed by different patterns of papilledema and retinal hemorrhages in 5 cases (20%). Discontinuation of amiodarone was the most common intervention, followed by application of topical heparin. Outcomes among case reports were variable.
CONCLUSIONS
Cornea verticillata/vortex keratopathy was the most common ocular adverse effect in cases where amiodarone was administered. Early recognition of amiodarone-induced ocular adverse effects is imperative to prevent worsening keratopathy or uncommon adverse effects. Collaboration between physicians prescribing amiodarone-to recognize the ocular symptoms-and referral to eye care physicians are important.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Case-Control Studies; Corneal Diseases; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Papilledema; Retinal Hemorrhage; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 32697562
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001534 -
The Journal of Heart and Lung... Jun 2024Vasoplegic syndrome (VS) is a common occurrence during heart transplantation (HT). It currently lacks a uniform definition between transplant centers, and its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vasoplegic syndrome (VS) is a common occurrence during heart transplantation (HT). It currently lacks a uniform definition between transplant centers, and its pathophysiology and treatment remain enigmatic. This systematic review summarizes the available published clinical data regarding VS during HT.
METHODS
We searched databases for all published reports on VS during HT. Data collected included the incidence of VS in the HT population, patient and intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS
Twenty-two publications were included in this review. The prevalence of VS during HT was 28.72% (95% confidence interval: 27.37%, 30.10%). Factors associated with VS included male sex, higher body mass index, hypothyroidism, pre-HT left ventricular assist device or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), pre-HT calcium channel blocker or amiodarone usage, longer cardiopulmonary bypass time, and higher blood product transfusion requirement. Patients who developed VS were more likely to require postoperative VA-ECMO support, renal replacement therapy, reoperation for bleeding, longer mechanical ventilation, and a greater 30-day and 1-year mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our systematic review are an initial step for providing clinicians with data that can help identify high-risk patients and avenues for potential risk mitigation. Establishing guidelines that officially define VS will aid in the precise diagnosis of these patients during HT and guide treatment. Future studies of treatment strategies for refractory VS are needed in this high-risk patient population.
Topics: Humans; Vasoplegia; Heart Transplantation; Incidence; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Intraoperative Complications
PubMed: 38428755
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2024.02.1458 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Feb 2024The available evidence to determine which antidysrhythmic drug is superior for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset (onset within 48 h) atrial fibrillation (AF)... (Review)
Review
Safety and Effectiveness of Antidysrhythmic Drugs for Pharmacologic Cardioversion of Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
The available evidence to determine which antidysrhythmic drug is superior for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset (onset within 48 h) atrial fibrillation (AF) is uncertain. We aimed to identify the safest and most effective agent for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset AF in the emergency department.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to February 21, 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42018083781). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult participants with AF ≤ 48 h, compared a guideline-recommended antidysrhythmic drug with another antidysrhythmic drug or a different formulation of the same drug or placebo and reported specific adverse events. The primary outcome was immediate, serious adverse event - cardiac arrest, sustained ventricular tachydysrhythmia, atrial flutter 1:1 atrioventricular conduction, hypotension, and bradycardia. Additional analyses included the outcomes of conversion to sinus rhythm within 4 h and 24 h. We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with random-effect model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. We assessed confidence using CINeMA. We used surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank agent(s).
RESULTS
The systematic review initially identified 5545 studies. Twenty-five studies met eligibility criteria, and 22 studies (n = 3082) provided data for NMA, which demonstrated that vernakalant (SUCRA = 70.9%) is most likely to be safest. Additional effectiveness NMA demonstrated that flecainide (SUCRA = 89.0%) is most likely to be superior for conversion within 4 h (27 studies; n = 2681), and ranolazine-amiodarone IV (SUCRA 93.7%) is most likely to be superior for conversion within 24 h (24 studies; n = 3213). Confidence in the NMA estimates is variable and limited mostly by within-study bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
Among guideline-recommended antidysrhythmic drugs, the combination of digoxin IV and amiodarone IV is definitely among the least safe for cardioversion of recent onset AF; flecainide, vernakalant, ibutilide, propafenone, and amiodarone IV are definitely among the most effective for cardioversion within 4 h; flecainide is definitely among the most effective for cardioversion within 24 h. Further, randomized controlled trials with predetermined and strictly defined, hemodynamic adverse event outcomes are recommended.
PubMed: 38324103
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-024-07552-6 -
Pharmacotherapy Feb 2016Amiodarone remains the mostly frequently used antiarrhythmic in clinical practice and is most often used to maintain normal sinus rhythm in patients with atrial... (Review)
Review
Amiodarone remains the mostly frequently used antiarrhythmic in clinical practice and is most often used to maintain normal sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation who have failed a rate control strategy. Amiodarone has superior efficacy over other antiarrhythmics, a lower risk of torsade de pointes, and a better cardiovascular safety profile in patients with structural heart disease. However, amiodarone is associated with notable noncardiac toxicities affecting the thyroid, lungs, eyes, liver, and central nervous system. Since 2000, clinicians have been advised to follow amiodarone monitoring guidelines provided by the Heart Rhythm Society. Adherence to these recommendations in clinical practice, however, is suboptimal. Pharmacists play a major role in ensuring the safe and effective use of medications, particularly high-risk medications such as amiodarone. This qualitative review details the evidence supporting the role of pharmacist-led amiodarone monitoring services (AMS) in improving adherence to amiodarone monitoring guidelines and identifying adverse effects. Five studies were identified, and, overall, these programs had a favorable impact on improving adherence to guideline-recommended monitoring standards for amiodarone. The available evidence is limited by the significant variations in study designs and outcome definitions, lack of patient randomization, and limited generalizability. Nevertheless, available studies suggest that pharmacist-led AMS may improve adherence to recommended monitoring guidelines and identification of amiodarone-related adverse effects. Further study is warranted to demonstrate whether these services impact the overall quality of care provided to patients receiving amiodarone, which may justify broader implementation.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Drug Monitoring; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guideline Adherence; Humans; International Agencies; Pharmacists; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Professional Role; Quality Improvement; Quality of Health Care
PubMed: 26846446
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1697 -
The American Journal of Medicine May 2018Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and amiodarone are widely used in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The DOACs are P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome...
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and amiodarone are widely used in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The DOACs are P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome p-450 (CYP3A4) substrates. Direct oral anticoagulant levels may be increased by the concomitant use of potent dual P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as amiodarone, which can potentially translate into adverse clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-drug interaction by the concomitant use of DOACs and amiodarone.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Embase, limiting our search to randomized controlled trials of patients with atrial fibrillation that have compared DOACs versus warfarin for prophylaxis of stroke or systemic embolism, to analyze the impact on stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and intracranial bleeding risk in patients with concomitant use of amiodarone. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The fixed effects model was used owing to heterogeneity (I) < 25%.
RESULTS
Four trials with a total of 71,683 patients were analyzed, from which 5% of patients (n = 3212) were concomitantly taking DOAC and amiodarone. We found no statistically significant difference for any of the clinical outcomes (stroke or systemic embolism [RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.06], major bleeding [RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.07], or intracranial bleeding [RR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.68-1.78]) among patients taking DOAC and amiodarone versus DOAC without amiodarone.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis, co-administration of DOACs and amiodarone, a dual P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitor, does not seem to affect efficacy or safety outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Drug Interactions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hemorrhage; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29274758
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.11.047 -
Critical Care Nurse Feb 2019Intravenous amiodarone is the gold-standard treatment for arrhythmias, but phlebitis is a common adverse effect.
BACKGROUND
Intravenous amiodarone is the gold-standard treatment for arrhythmias, but phlebitis is a common adverse effect.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the incidence and contributing factors of amiodarone-induced phlebitis and examine phlebitis severity.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of articles published before February 2016 in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and gray databases (Bielefeld, Lenus, EUGrey, RIAN, and DART). All studies in which amiodarone-induced phlebitis was a primary or secondary outcome were included. Meta-analysis was not appropriate because of study heterogeneity. Studies of the same contributing factors were analyzed together.
RESULTS
In the 20 included studies, phlebitis incidence ranged from 0% to 85%. Increasing the infusion concentration from 1.2 mg/mL to 1.8 mg/mL increased the phlebitis rate ( < .001). Total amiodarone doses greater than 1 g resulted in higher phlebitis rates than did doses less than 0.45 mg ( < .001). Most infusion durations and rates were not correlated with phlebitis incidence. However, phlebitis incidence was lower with bolus administration than with longer infusions ( = .002). The use of in-line filters and nursing guidelines significantly reduced phlebitis rates ( < .001) and phlebitis severity. The most common phlebitis severity grades, in descending order, were 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding factors that increase the risk of amiodarone-induced phlebitis can guide better practice. In-line filters and nursing guidelines should always be implemented when administering intravenous amiodarone. Increased surveillance is required when higher dosages and concentrations are used.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Humans; Incidence; Infusions, Intravenous; Phlebitis; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 30710042
DOI: 10.4037/ccn2019381 -
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