-
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 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort intolerance, fluid retention, and increased mortality. The 5-year mortality in people with systolic heart failure ranges from 25% to 75%, often owing to sudden death following ventricular arrhythmia. Risks of cardiovascular events are increased in people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of multidisciplinary interventions for heart failure? What are the effects of exercise in people with heart failure? What are the effects of drug treatments for heart failure? What are the effects of devices for treatment of heart failure? What are the effects of coronary revascularisation for treatment of heart failure? What are the effects of drug treatments in people at high risk of heart failure? What are the effects of treatments for diastolic heart failure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2010 (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 80 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: aldosterone receptor antagonists, amiodarone, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticoagulation, antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, coronary revascularisation, digoxin (in people already receiving diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), exercise, hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate, implantable cardiac defibrillators, multidisciplinary interventions, non-amiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs, and positive inotropes (other than digoxin).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Heart Failure; Humans; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 21878135
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Cardiology Nov 2016Right heart failure is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The optimal treatment for patients with RV failure is not established. The aim of this study is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Right heart failure is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The optimal treatment for patients with RV failure is not established. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the relative benefits and harms of digoxin therapy in patients with RV failure.
METHODS
We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on Nov. 4, 2014. We did not use publication type, period or language restrictions to the search strategy. Exclusions included: trials that excluded patients with RV failure, included patients requiring mechanical or intravenous inotropic support, review papers and case reports. The primary outcome was long-term efficacy outcomes of digoxin in right heart failure. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts of identified citations independently and in duplication using calibration exercises and standardized screening forms.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 4097 citations, and 4 studies were included in this analysis (n=76 patients). Of the four studies, two assessed improvements in RVEF, two studies compared exercise capacity indexes, and one assessed symptoms with digoxin compared with placebo. No study assessed mortality outcomes. Overall, there was no statistically significant improvement in RVEF, exercise capacity, NYHA class, heart failure score, or body weight.
CONCLUSIONS
There are few studies evaluating Digitalis use for RV failure, which are limited to patients with cor pulmonale. In these patients, Digitalis use provides no improvement in RVEF, exercise capacity, or NYHA class. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address this question.
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Digoxin; Humans; Pulmonary Heart Disease; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27543702
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.018 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2010Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort intolerance, fluid retention, and increased mortality. The 5-year mortality in people with systolic heart failure ranges from 25% to 75%, often owing to sudden death following ventricular arrhythmia. Risks of cardiovascular events are increased in people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug treatments, and of drug and invasive treatments, for heart failure? What are the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in people at high risk of heart failure? What are the effects of treatments for diastolic heart failure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (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 85 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: aldosterone receptor antagonists; amiodarone; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; angiotensin II receptor blockers; anticoagulation; antiplatelet agents; beta-blockers; calcium channel blockers; cardiac resynchronisation therapy; digoxin (in people already receiving diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors); exercise; hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate; implantable cardiac defibrillators; multidisciplinary interventions; non-amiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs; and positive inotropes (other than digoxin).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 21718583
DOI: No ID Found -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... Nov 2022To resume the available literature about digoxin population pharmacokinetic studies in elderly patients. To identify the pathophysiological changes in this...
OBJECTIVE
To resume the available literature about digoxin population pharmacokinetic studies in elderly patients. To identify the pathophysiological changes in this subpopulation with clinical implications on digoxin pharmacokinetics.
METHOD
A systematic review was performed regarding the population pharmacokinetic studies in elderly patients receiving digoxin. Pub-Med, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS and Science Direct were used to identify the articles with the descriptors ("Digoxin"[Mesh]) AND ("Pharmacokinetics"[Mesh]) AND ("Aged"[Mesh] OR "Elderly"[Mesh]), followed by a manual search.
RESULTS
Nine studies were found and reviewed, five of them carried out in Asian patients. NONMEM was used for pharmacokinetic analysis of digoxin blood levels, being mostly described by a one-compartment model. Serum creatinine, body weight and concomitant administration of calcium channel blockers are the covariates that most frequently influence digoxin pharmacokinetics in elderly patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Elderly people present pathophysiological changes with influence on the pharmacokinetics of many drugs. The covariates with most influence on digoxin pharmacokinetics should be considered when adjusting this drug dosage in elder patients to achieve optimum health benefits and prevent possible side effects.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Digoxin; Creatinine; Patients
PubMed: 36520576
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology Apr 2016Atrial fibrillation (AF), which increases morbidity and mortality, is a common occurrence after thoracic surgery and pulmonary resection. Despite several investigations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Atrial fibrillation (AF), which increases morbidity and mortality, is a common occurrence after thoracic surgery and pulmonary resection. Despite several investigations on various prophylactic measures for AF prevention, the studies were not uniform and do not use similar controls making it difficult to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. In the present systematic analysis review, we evaluated the efficacy of different prophylactic approaches to prevent AF after lung surgery in randomized trials reported during 1991-2014. A total of 12 trials were identified that met the criteria set for this meta-analysis. Among different trials, amiodarone was found to be most effective in preventing postoperative AF (risk ratio, 0.22; P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.54). There were no significant prophylactic effects by MgSO4 (risk ratio, 1.24; P < 0.007; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-5.68), digoxin, or Ca blockers. Single use of amiodarone was able to lower the incidence of AF from 39.2% to 8.3% and seemed to be safe with no major complications. Although several prophylactic measures have been tried to curtail the incidence of AF in patients after lung surgery, prophylaxis with amiodarone seems to be most effective of treatments studied.
Topics: Amiodarone; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Incidence; Lung; Pneumonectomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26779893
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000000351 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2011Atrial 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 questions: 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? What is the effect of different treatment strategies (rate versus rhythm) for people with persistent non-valvular atrial fibrillation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (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 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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 (with or without digoxin), calcium channel blockers (with or without digoxin), calcium channel blockers (rate-limiting), digoxin, and rate versus rhythm control strategies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Digoxin; Humans
PubMed: 22075545
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Dec 2021The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements...
INTRODUCTION
The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal? Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal.
METHODS
A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline (Ovid), subsequently translated for Embase ( Ovid), CINAHL ( EBSCO), BIOSIS Previews ( Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations. One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study.
RESULTS
From 22,950 titles originally identified, the final data set consisted of 296 human studies, 118 animal studies, and 145 studies. Also included were 71 human and two animal studies that reported adverse events. The quality was judged to have a Low or Very Low GRADE in 469 (83%) of the studies. Ninety studies were judged to be of Moderate or High GRADE. The higher GRADE studies reported on the following drugs: paracetamol (acetaminophen), phenobarbital, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides (digoxin and oleander), ethanol, iron, salicylates, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproate. Data on newer pharmaceuticals not reviewed in the previous American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists statements such as quetiapine, olanzapine, citalopram, and Factor Xa inhibitors were included. No studies on the optimal dosing for either single-dose or multiple-dose activated charcoal were found. In the reviewed clinical data, the time of administration of the first dose of charcoal was beyond one hour in 97% ( = 1006 individuals), beyond two hours in 36% ( = 491 individuals), and beyond 12 h in 4% ( = 43 individuals) whereas the timing of the first dose in controlled studies was within one hour of ingestion in 48% ( = 2359 individuals) and beyond two hours in 36% ( = 484) of individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death. Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Animals; Carbamazepine; Charcoal; Decontamination; Drug Overdose; Humans
PubMed: 34424785
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2021.1961144 -
Current Drug Targets 2023One of the major indications for digoxin use is the treatment of heart failure (HF). Although the clinical application of digoxin in long-term outcomes in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
One of the major indications for digoxin use is the treatment of heart failure (HF). Although the clinical application of digoxin in long-term outcomes in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients is well explained, the association between digoxin therapy and outcomes in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not very clear.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to show the clinical efficacy of digoxin on long-term outcomes in subjects with HFpEF.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science (ISI) electronic databases were searched until May 2021 to obtain relevant studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality attributed to treatment with digoxin. The secondary outcomes were "all-cause hospitalization", "hospitalization because of HF" and "all-cause mortality or hospitalization of HF".
RESULTS
Seven studies with more than 23000 patients with HFpEF, of which more than 4900 were treated with digoxin, fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Treatment with digoxin was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.91-1.20, I2 = 57.9 %), all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.88-1.07, I2 = 0.0 %), HFhospitalization (HR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.90-1.02, I2 = 41.4 %), and all-cause mortality or HFhospitalization (HR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.91-1.26, I2 = 81.2 %). In subgroup meta-analyses based on ejection fraction (EF), treatment with digoxin did not significantly alter these outcomes in each subset of patients.
CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that digoxin does not have any significant effect on long-term outcomes of HFpEF patients, including "all-cause mortality", "all-cause hospitalization", "hospitalization because of HF" and "all-cause mortality or hospitalization of HF".
Topics: Humans; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Prognosis; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Cardiotonic Agents
PubMed: 36065922
DOI: 10.2174/1389450123666220906093058