-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024This systematic review explores the effects of landiolol administration in individuals presenting with supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT) and concurrent left... (Review)
Review
This systematic review explores the effects of landiolol administration in individuals presenting with supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT) and concurrent left ventricular dysfunction, without being septic or in a peri-operative period. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, retrieving a total of 15 eligible studies according to prespecified eligibility criteria. Patients treated with landiolol experienced a substantial reduction in heart rate (HR) (mean HR reduction: 42 bpm, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 37-47, I = 82%) and were more likely to achieve the target HR compared to those receiving alternative antiarrhythmic therapy (pooled odds ratio (OR): 5.37, 95% CIs: 2.87-10.05, I = 0%). Adverse events, primarily hypotension, occurred in 14.7% of patients receiving landiolol, but no significant difference was observed between the landiolol and alternative antiarrhythmic receiving groups (pooled OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.57-1.83, I = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the two groups concerning sinus rhythm restoration (pooled OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.25-3.78, I = 0%) and drug discontinuation due to adverse events (pooled OR: 5.09, 95% CI: 0.6-43.38, I = 0%). While further research is warranted, this systematic review highlights the potential benefits of landiolol administration in the management of SVTs in the context of left ventricular dysfunction.
PubMed: 38541908
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13061683 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2010This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone for the treatment of atrial... (Review)
Review
This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The population considered in the submission were adult clinically stable patients with a recent history of or current non-permanent AF. Comparators were the current available anti-arrhythmic drugs: class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone), sotalol and amiodarone. Outcomes were AF recurrence, all-cause mortality, stroke, treatment discontinuations (due to any cause or due to adverse events) and serious adverse events. The main evidence came from four phase III randomised controlled trials, direct and indirect meta-analyses from a systematic review, and a synthesis of the direct and indirect evidence using a mixed-treatment comparison. Overall, the results from the different synthesis approaches showed that the odds of AF recurrence appeared statistically significantly lower with dronedarone and other anti-arrhythmic drugs than with non-active control, and that the odds of AF recurrence are statistically significantly higher for dronedarone than for amiodarone. However, the results for outcomes of all-cause mortality, stroke and treatment discontinuations and serious adverse events were all uncertain. A discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate dronedarone versus antiarrhythmic drugs and standard therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dronedarone was relatively robust and less than 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. Exploratory work undertaken by the ERG identified that the main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the benefits assigned to dronedarone for all-cause mortality and stroke. Dronedarone is not cost-effective relative to its comparators when the only effect of treatment is a reduction in AF recurrences. In conclusion, uncertainties remain in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone. In particular, the clinical evidence for the major drivers of cost-effectiveness (all-cause mortality and stroke), and consequently the additional benefits attributed in the economic model to dronedarone compared to other anti-arrhythmic drugs are highly uncertain. The final guidance, issued by NICE on 25 August 2010, states that: Dronedarone is recommended as an option for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation only in people: whose atrial fibrillation is not controlled by first-line therapy (usually including beta-blockers), that is, as a second-line treatment option, and who have at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: - hypertension requiring drugs of at least two different classes, diabetes mellitus, previous transient ischaemic attack, stroke or systemic embolism, left atrial diameter of 50 mm or greater, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% (noting that the summary of product characteristics [SPC] does not recommend dronedarone for people with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35% because of limited experience of using it in this group) or age 70 years or older, and who do not have unstable New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure. Furthermore, 'People who do not meet the criteria above who are currently receiving dronedarone should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop'.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dronedarone; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21047492
DOI: 10.3310/hta14suppl2/08 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022An update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of arrhythmias and their subtypes in type 2 diabetic patients receiving glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
An update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of arrhythmias and their subtypes in type 2 diabetic patients receiving glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) medication according to data from the Cardiovascular Outcome Trial(CVOT).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) on GLP-1RA therapy and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients published in full-text journal databases such as MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Clinical Trials.gov, and the Cochrane Library from establishment to March 1, 2022 were searched. We assessed the quality of individual studies by the Cochrane risk-of-bias algorithm. RevMan 5.4.1 software was use for calculating meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 60,081 randomized participants were included in the data of these 8 GLP-1RA cardiovascular outcomes trials. Pooled analysis reported no significant effect on total arrhythmia [RR=0.96, 95% CI (0.96, 1.05), =0.36], and its subtypes such as atrial fibrillation [RR=0.96, 95% CI (0.86, 1.07), =0.43], atrial flutter [RR= 0.82, 95% CI (0.57, 1.19), =0.30], atrial tachycardia [RR=0.64, 95% CI (0.20, 2.01), =0.44)], sinoatrial node dysfunction [RR=0.74, 95% CI (0.44, 1.25), =0.26], ventricular preterm systole [RR=1.42, 95% CI (0.62, 3.26), =0.41], second degree AV block [RR=0.96, 95% CI (0.53, 1.72), =0.88], complete AV block [RR=0.75, 95% CI (0.49, 1.17), =0.21], ventricular fibrillation [RR=1.00, 95% CI (0.50, 2.02), =1.00], ventricular tachycardia [RR=1.37, 95% CI (0.91, 2.08), =0.13] from treatment with GLP-1RA versus placebo. However, the risk of hypoglycemia was reduced by about 30% [RR=0.70, 95% CI (0.57, 0.87), =0.001] and the risk of pneumonia by about 25% [RR=0.85, 95% CI (0.75, 0.97), =0.01], both statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSION
In type 2 diabetic patients, treatment with GLP-1RA has no significant effect on the risk of major arrhythmias but significantly reduces the risk of hypoglycemia and pneumonia.
Topics: Atrioventricular Block; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36034440
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.910256 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) May 2023In neonates, cardiac arrhythmias are rare. Electric countershock therapy is an effective alternative to drug therapy for neonatal arrhythmias. There are no randomized... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In neonates, cardiac arrhythmias are rare. Electric countershock therapy is an effective alternative to drug therapy for neonatal arrhythmias. There are no randomized controlled studies investigating electric countershock therapy in neonates.
OBJECTIVE
To identify all studies and publications describing electric countershock therapy (including defibrillation, cardioversion, and pacing) in newborn infants within 28 days after birth, and to provide a comprehensive review of this treatment modality and associated outcomes.
METHODS
For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). All articles reporting electric countershock therapy in newborn infants within 28 days after birth were included.
RESULTS
In terms of figures, 113 neonates who received electric countershock due to arrhythmias were reported. Atrial flutter (76.1%) was the most common arrhythmia, followed by supraventricular tachycardia (13.3%). Others were ventricular tachycardia (9.7%) and torsade de pointes (0.9%). The main type of electric countershock therapy was synchronized cardioversion (79.6%). Transesophageal pacing was used in twenty neonates (17.7%), and defibrillation was used in five neonates (4.4%).
CONCLUSION
Electric countershock therapy is an effective treatment option in the neonatal period. In atrial flutter especially, excellent outcomes are reported with direct synchronized electric cardioversion.
PubMed: 37238386
DOI: 10.3390/children10050838 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Jun 2024Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias, which increases serious morbidity and mortality. Novel hypoglycemic drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors with cardiac arrhythmias in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias, which increases serious morbidity and mortality. Novel hypoglycemic drug sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor has shown sufficient cardiovascular benefits in cardiovascular outcome trials.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the relationship between SGLT2 inhibitors and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with T2DM.
METHODS
We searched on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for at least 24 weeks of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials involving T2DM subjects assigned to SGLT2 inhibitors or placebo as of May 5, 2023. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for binary variables. Primary outcomes included atrial arrhythmias, ventricular arrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter. Secondary outcomes comprised atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, atrioventricular block, and sinus node dysfunction.
RESULTS
We included 32 trials covering 60,594 T2DM patients (SGLT2 inhibitor 35,432; placebo 25,162; mean age 53.9 to 68.5 years). SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of atrial arrhythmias (RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04) or atrial fibrillation/flutter (RR 0.85; 95%CI 0.74-0.99; P = 0.03) compared to placebo; in subgroup analysis, SGLT2 inhibitors achieved a consistent effect with overall results in T2DM with high cardiovascular risk or follow-up > 1 year populations. There was no substantial evidence to suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.71-1.26; P = 0.69) and cardiac arrest (RR 0.88; 95%CI 0.66-1.18; P = 0.39). A neutral effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on bradyarrhythmias was observed (RR 1.02; 95%CI 0.79-1.33; P = 0.85). SGLT2 inhibitors had no significant impact on all secondary outcomes compared to placebo, while it had borderline effect for atrial fibrillation.
CONCLUSION
SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of atrial arrhythmias in patients with T2DM. Our results support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM with high cardiovascular risk populations. We also recommend the long-term use of SGLT2 inhibitors to achieve further benefits.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Arrhythmias, Cardiac
PubMed: 38353684
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-024-02386-6 -
Frontiers in Genetics 2019Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is a rare syndrome and affects different types of genes. However, data on differences of clinical profile and outcome of different SQTS types...
BACKGROUND
Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is a rare syndrome and affects different types of genes. However, data on differences of clinical profile and outcome of different SQTS types are sparse.
METHODS
We conducted a pooled analysis of 110 SQTS patients. Patients have been diagnosed between 2000 and 2017 at our institution (n = 12) and revealed using a literature review (n = 98). 29 studies were identified by analysing systematic data bases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Libary, Cinahl).
RESULTS
67 patients with genotype positive SQTS origin and 43 patients with genotype negative origin were found. A significant difference is documented between the sex with a higher predominance of male in genotype negative SQTS patients and predominance of females in genotype positive SQTS patients (male 52% versus 84%, female 45% versus 14%; p = 0.0016). No relevant difference of their median age (genotype positive 27 ± 19 versus genotype negative 29 ± 15; p = 0.48) was found. Asymptomatic patients and patients reporting symptoms such as syncope, sudden cardiac death, atrial flutter and ventricular fibrillation documented in both groups were similar except atrial fibrillation (genotype positive 19% versus genotype negative 0%; p = 0.0055). The QTc interval was not significantly different in both groups (genotype positive 315 ± 32 versus genotype negative 320 ± 19; p = 0.30). The treatments (medical treatment and ICD implantation) in both groups were comparable. Electrophysiology studies were not significantly higher documented in patients with genotype positive and negative origin (24% versus 9%; p = 0.075). Events at follow up such as VT, VF, and SCD were not higher presented in patients with genotype positive (13% versus 9%) (p = 0.25). 54% of genotype positive SQTS patients showed SQTS 1 followed by STQS 2 (21%) and SQTS 3 (10%).
CONCLUSIONS
The long-term risk of a malignant arrhythmic event is not higher in patients with genotype positive. However, patients with genotype positive present themselves more often with AF with a female predominance. Also, other events at follow up such as syncope, atrial flutter and palpitation were not significantly higher (9% versus 0%; p = 0.079).
PubMed: 32010184
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01312 -
World Journal of Cardiology Jun 2020Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common...
BACKGROUND
Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common during cardiac catheterization, and there are risks of developing serious and potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, such as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) and high-grade conduction disturbances such as complete heart block (CHB), requiring immediate interventions. However, there is lack of systematic overview of these conditions.
AIM
To systematically review existing literature and gain better understanding of the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias during cardiac catheterization, and their impact on outcomes, as well as potential approaches to minimize this risk.
METHODS
We applied a combination of terms potentially used in reports describing various cardiac arrhythmias during common cardiac catheterization procedures to systematically search PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as references of full-length articles.
RESULTS
During right heart catheterization (RHC), the incidence of atrial arrhythmias (premature atrial complexes, atrial fibrillation and flutter) was low (< 1%); these arrhythmias were usually transient and self-limited. RHC associated with the development of a new RBBB at a rate of 0.1%-0.3% in individuals with normal conduction system but up to 6.3% in individuals with pre-existing left bundle branch block. These patients may require temporary pacing due to transient CHB. Isolated premature ventricular complexes or non-sustained VT are common during RHC (up to 20% of cases). Sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VT and/or VF) requiring either withdrawal of catheter or cardioversion occurred infrequently (1%-1.3%). During left heart catheterizations (LHC), the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias has declined significantly over the last few decades, from 1.1% historically to 0.1% currently. The overall reported rate of VT/VF in diagnostic LHC and coronary angiography is 0.8%. The risk of VT/VF was higher during percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease (1.1%) and even higher for patients with acute myocardial infarctions (4.1%-4.3%). Intravenous adenosine and papaverine bolus for fractional flow reserve measurement, as well as intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography have been reported to induce VF. Although uncommon, LHC and coronary angiography were also reported to induce conduction disturbances including CHB.
CONCLUSION
Cardiac arrhythmias are common and potentially serious complications of cardiac catheterization procedures, and it demands constant vigilance and readiness to intervene during procedures.
PubMed: 32774779
DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v12.i6.269 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2024Smartwatches represent one of the most widely adopted technological innovations among wearable devices. Their evolution has equipped them with an increasing array of... (Review)
Review
Smartwatches represent one of the most widely adopted technological innovations among wearable devices. Their evolution has equipped them with an increasing array of features, including the capability to record an electrocardiogram. This functionality allows users to detect potential arrhythmias, enabling prompt intervention or monitoring of existing arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation. In our research, we aimed to compile case reports, case series, and cohort studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases published until 1 August 2023. The search employed keywords such as "Smart Watch", "Apple Watch", "Samsung Gear", "Samsung Galaxy Watch", "Google Pixel Watch", "Fitbit", "Huawei Watch", "Withings", "Garmin", "Atrial Fibrillation", "Supraventricular Tachycardia", "Cardiac Arrhythmia", "Ventricular Tachycardia", "Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia", "Atrioventricular Reentrant Tachycardia", "Heart Block", "Atrial Flutter", "Ectopic Atrial Tachycardia", and "Bradyarrhythmia." We obtained a total of 758 results, from which we selected 57 articles, including 33 case reports and case series, as well as 24 cohort studies. Most of the scientific works focused on atrial fibrillation, which is often detected using Apple Watches. Nevertheless, we also included articles investigating arrhythmias with the potential for circulatory collapse without immediate intervention. This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on arrhythmia detection using smartwatches. Through further research, it may be possible to develop a care protocol that integrates arrhythmias recorded by smartwatches, allowing for timely access to appropriate medical care for patients. Additionally, continuous monitoring of existing arrhythmias using smartwatches could facilitate the assessment of the effectiveness of prescribed therapies.
PubMed: 38727449
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12090892 -
Congenital Heart Disease 2016So-called heterotaxy affects lateralization of the thoracic and abdominal organs. Congenital malformations may be present in one of several organ systems. Cardiac... (Review)
Review
So-called heterotaxy affects lateralization of the thoracic and abdominal organs. Congenital malformations may be present in one of several organ systems. Cardiac involvement includes both structural and conduction abnormalities. Data regarding arrhythmias in heterotaxy come from case reports and small case series. We pooled available data to further characterize arrhythmias in heterotaxy. A systematic review of the literature for manuscripts describing arrhythmias in heterotaxy patients was conducted. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid were searched. Studies describing arrhythmias in patients with heterotaxy were included if they were in English and presented characteristics of the arrhythmias. Arrhythmia characteristics were abstracted and are presented as pooled data. Freedom from arrhythmia by age was then analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A total of 19 studies with 121 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Those with right isomerism were found to be more likely to have atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia, junctional tachycardia, and ventricular tachycardia. Those with left isomerism were more likely to have atrioventricular block, intraventricular conduction delay, sick sinus syndrome, and atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia. Median age of onset for all arrhythmias was 4 years with no difference by specific arrhythmia or isomerism. Those with right and left isomerism are at risk for different arrhythmias but are likely to develop arrhythmias at the same age. Those with left isomerism are more likely to require pacemaker placement due to atrioventricular block. Understanding these differences allows for focused surveillance of development of these arrhythmias.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age of Onset; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Child; Child, Preschool; Chronic Disease; Disease-Free Survival; Electrocardiography; Heterotaxy Syndrome; Humans; Infant; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 26219620
DOI: 10.1111/chd.12288 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Aug 2023Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a direct myosin activator that augments left ventricular systolic function. This review compares OM to placebo by evaluating its effect on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
KCCQ total symptom score, clinical outcome measures, and adverse events associated with omecamtiv mecarbil for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a direct myosin activator that augments left ventricular systolic function. This review compares OM to placebo by evaluating its effect on clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A literature search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating OM versus placebo was undertaken. Six RCTs comprising 9596 patients were included. Use of OM was associated with a reduced risk of stroke (RR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.92). There was no significant mean difference (MD) change in the KCCQ total symptom score (MD: 1.82, 95% CI - 1.33 to 4.97), all-cause death (RR: 1.00; 95% CI 0.93-1.07), hospital readmissions (RR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.03), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.05; 95% CI 0.83-1.33), cardiovascular death (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.92-1.10), heart failure (HF) events (RR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.02), or a composite of cardiovascular death or HF events (RR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-1.02). In addition, OM was associated with an increased risk of dizziness (RR: 1.25; 95% CI 1.04-1.50) and hypotension (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 1.01-1.36). Other adverse events including ventricular tachyarrhythmias, (RR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.82-1.11), supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and atrial fibrillation/flutter (RR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.46-1.18), dyspnea (RR: 1.00; 95% CI 0.86-1.18), and acute renal injury (RR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.60-1.27) were not significant.
CONCLUSION
OM is generally well tolerated. We identified a reduced risk of stroke with use of OM. However, there was no improvement in other clinical outcomes or quality of life. Study protocol was registered in PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42022348423).
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Heart Failure; Stroke Volume; Stroke; Atrial Fibrillation; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 36800016
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-023-02172-w