-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been...
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence. This is an update of a review previously published in 2006, 2012 and 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation in people who had recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase in January 2019, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP in February 2019. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored, spontaneously or by any intervention. We excluded postoperative atrial fibrillation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We pooled studies, if appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up or the nearest time point.
MAIN RESULTS
This update included one new study (100 participants) and excluded one previously included study because of double publication. Finally, we included 59 RCTs comprising 20,981 participants studying quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone and sotalol. Overall, mean follow-up was 10.2 months.All-cause mortalityHigh-certainty evidence from five RCTs indicated that treatment with sotalol was associated with a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.81; participants = 1882). The number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for sotalol was 102 participants treated for one year to have one additional death. Low-certainty evidence from six RCTs suggested that risk of mortality may be higher in people taking quinidine (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.77; participants = 1646). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased RR for mortality but with very wide CIs for metoprolol (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.05, 2 RCTs, participants = 562) and amiodarone (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.99, 2 RCTs, participants = 444), compared with placebo.We found little or no difference in mortality with dofetilide (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence) or dronedarone (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/no treatment. There were few data on mortality for disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, making impossible a reliable estimation for those drugs.Withdrawals due to adverse eventsAll analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse effects compared to placebo or no treatment (quinidine: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.78; disopyramide: RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.95 to 14.24; propafenone: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.46; flecainide: RR 15.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 260.19; metoprolol: RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.15; amiodarone: RR 6.70, 95% CI 1.91 to 23.45; dofetilide: RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.18; dronedarone: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85; sotalol: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.11). Certainty of the evidence for this outcome was low for disopyramide, amiodarone, dofetilide and flecainide; moderate to high for the remaining drugs.ProarrhythmiaVirtually all studied antiarrhythmics showed increased proarrhythmic effects (counting both tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias attributable to treatment) (quinidine: RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 4.41; disopyramide: no data; flecainide: RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 17.77; metoprolol: RR 18.14, 95% CI 2.42 to 135.66; amiodarone: RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.96; dofetilide: RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 22.76; dronedarone: RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.98; sotalol: RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.16 to 5.83); with the exception of propafenone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.47) for which the certainty of evidence was very low and we were uncertain about the effect. Certainty of the evidence for this outcome for the other drugs was moderate to high.StrokeEleven studies reported stroke outcomes with quinidine, disopyramide, flecainide, amiodarone, dronedarone and sotalol. High-certainty evidence from two RCTs suggested that dronedarone may be associated with reduced risk of stroke (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; participants = 5872). This result is attributed to one study dominating the meta-analysis and has yet to be reproduced in other studies. There was no apparent effect on stroke rates with the other antiarrhythmics.Recurrence of atrial fibrillationModerate- to high-certainty evidence, with the exception of disopyramide which was low-certainty evidence, showed that all analysed drugs, including metoprolol, reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (quinidine: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; disopyramide: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; propafenone: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.74; flecainide: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77; metoprolol: RR 0.83 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; amiodarone: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58; dofetilide: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; dronedarone: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; sotalol: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.87). Despite this reduction, atrial fibrillation still recurred in 43% to 67% of people treated with antiarrhythmics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence of increased mortality associated with sotalol treatment, and low-certainty evidence suggesting increased mortality with quinidine, when used for maintaining sinus rhythm in people with atrial fibrillation. We found few data on mortality in people taking disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, so it was not possible to make a reliable estimation of the mortality risk for these drugs. However, we did find moderate-certainty evidence of marked increases in proarrhythmia and adverse effects with flecainide.Overall, there is evidence showing that antiarrhythmic drugs increase adverse events, increase proarrhythmic events and some antiarrhythmics may increase mortality. Conversely, although they reduce recurrences of atrial fibrillation, there is no evidence of any benefit on other clinical outcomes, compared with placebo or no treatment.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31483500
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005049.pub5 -
Clinical Cardiology Oct 2019Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is recommended, the long-term...
BACKGROUND
Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is recommended, the long-term outcomes and follow-up data with regard to ICD complications have led to controversy.
HYPOTHESIS
In the present study, we described the data assimilated in a total of 11 studies, analyzing the outcome in 747 BrS patients receiving ICD.
METHODS
Data were performed and analyzed after a systematic review of literature compiled from a thorough database search (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Cinahl).
RESULTS
The mean age of patients receiving ICD was (43.1 ± 13.4, 82.5% males, 46.6% spontaneous BrS type I). Around 15.3% of the patients were admitted due to SCD and 10.4% suffered from atrial arrhythmia. Appropriate shocks were documented in 18.1% of the patients over a mean follow-up period of 82.3 months (47.5-110.4). The following complications were recorded: lead failure and fracture (5.4%), lead perforation (0.7%), lead dislodgement (1.7%), infection (3.9%), pain (0.4%), subclavian vein thrombosis (0.3%), pericardial effusion (0.1%), endocarditis (0.1%), psychiatric problems (1.5%), pneumothorax (0.7%). Inappropriate shocks were documented in 18.1% of the patients. The management of inappropriate shocks was achieved by pulmonary vein isolation (0.5%), drug treatment with sotalol (1.3%) or sotalol with beta-blocker (0.3%) and hydroquinidine (0.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
ICD therapy in BrS is associated with relevant ICD-related complications including a substantial risk of inappropriate shocks more frequently in symptomatic BrS patients.
Topics: Humans; Brugada Syndrome; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electrocardiography; Follow-Up Studies; Global Health; Survival Rate; Time Factors
PubMed: 31441080
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23247 -
The Journal of Emergency Medicine Mar 2018Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered dysrhythmia in the emergency department, and its prevalence is increasing. A substantial proportion of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered dysrhythmia in the emergency department, and its prevalence is increasing. A substantial proportion of these patients have recent-onset AF (<48 h). The poor prognosis associated with AF is being increasingly recognized, and there is some evidence for better outcomes in younger patients with recent-onset AF when sinus rhythm is restored. Flecainide is recommended in the latest international guidelines for cardioversion of recent-onset AF, but its safety and efficacy relative to other recommended agents are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to clarify the Level 1 evidence for the use of i.v. flecainide in acute AF.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Medline, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of i.v. flecainide for acute conversion of recent-onset AF were selected for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Four hundred and three studies were screened, of which 11 RCTs were eligible for meta-analysis. Flecainide had high efficacy for cardioversion within 2 h (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.8). Efficacy was superior to propafenone, amiodarone, procainamide, ibutilide, and sotalol (NNT = 4.3). There was no statistically significant difference in pro-dysrhythmia compared to these anti-dysrhythmics or placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous flecainide cardioversion could be a safe and effective option for emergency physicians to restore sinus rhythm in selected patients with acute AF.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Emergency Service, Hospital; Flecainide; Humans; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29269083
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.11.016 -
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 -
Prenatal Diagnosis Nov 2017Multiple transplacental medications can be used to treat fetal tachycardia. We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether digoxin,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Multiple transplacental medications can be used to treat fetal tachycardia. We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether digoxin, flecainide, or sotalol was the most efficacious therapy for converting fetal tachycardia to sinus rhythm.
METHOD
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare digoxin, flecainide, or sotalol as first-line therapy for fetal tachycardia. Studies were identified by a search of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, and Scopus.
RESULTS
There were 21 studies included. Flecainide (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-2.0, I = 60%, P = 0.03) and sotalol (OR:1.4, 95% CI:1.1-2.0, I = 30%, P = 0.02) were superior to digoxin for conversion of fetal tachycardia to sinus rhythm. In those with hydrops, the benefit over digoxin was more notable for both flecainide (OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 2.5-10.0, I = 0%, P < 0.001) and sotalol (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.7-5.0, I = 0%, P < 0.001). When limited to atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia, flecainide was superior to digoxin (OR:1.7, 95% CI:1.1-3.3, I = 62%, P = 0.03) and sotalol (OR:1.3, 95% CI:1.1-1.7, I = 0%, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Digoxin should not be first-line therapy for fetal tachycardia, particularly in the presence of hydrops fetalis. Flecainide should be the first-line therapy of choice in atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia. Further study may identify further sub-populations responding differently.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Digoxin; Female; Fetal Diseases; Fetal Therapies; Flecainide; Humans; Pregnancy; Sotalol; Tachycardia
PubMed: 28833310
DOI: 10.1002/pd.5144 -
Cardiology 2017The role of sotalol is well established for the maintenance of sinus rhythm after successful conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its role in pharmacologic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The role of sotalol is well established for the maintenance of sinus rhythm after successful conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its role in pharmacologic conversion of AF is poorly defined. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of sotalol to that of other antiarrhythmic agents for AF conversion.
METHODS
Standard methods of meta-analysis were employed. Full-text publications of clinical trials in English that compared the efficacy of sotalol to that of other antiarrhythmics or placebo/no treatment were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
A systematic review revealed 10 eligible publications. Sotalol was superior to placebo and/or no antiarrhythmic therapy in AF conversion, with a relative success of 24 (95% CI 4.7-119, p < 0.001). Sotalol was not significantly different from class IA antiarrhythmic drugs. Similarly, sotalol was not different from class IC antiarrhythmic drugs or amiodarone in terms of conversion efficacy. In one study, sotalol was less effective than high-dose ibutilide (2 mg), with a relative success of 0.248 (95% CI 0.128-0.481, p < 0.001). Ibutilide caused more proarrhythmia.
CONCLUSIONS
Sotalol is as effective as class IA and class IC antiarrhythmic agents, and it is also as effective as amiodarone for pharmacologic conversion of AF. Only ibutilide at a high dose showed a greater conversion rate of AF.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Sotalol; Sulfonamides; Therapeutic Equivalency
PubMed: 27554842
DOI: 10.1159/000447237 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation frequently recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation frequently recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear. This is an update of a review previously published in 2008 and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine in patients who have recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation, the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, embolism, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches of CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12 of 12), MEDLINE (to January 2014) and EMBASE (to January 2014). The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two independent authors selected randomised controlled trials comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored. Post-operative atrial fibrillation was excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update three new studies, with 534 patients, were included making a total of 59 included studies comprising 21,305 patients. All included studies were randomised controlled trials. Allocation concealment was adequate in 17 trials, it was unclear in the remaining 42 trials. Risk of bias was assessed in all domains only in the trials included in this update.Compared with controls, class IA drugs quinidine and disopyramide (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.03 to 5.59, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 109, 95% CI 34 to 4985) and sotalol (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.50, NNTH 169, 95% CI 60 to 2068) were associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other antiarrhythmics did not seem to modify mortality, but our data could be underpowered to detect mild increases in mortality for several of the drugs studied.Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.19 to 0.70, number needed to treat to beneft (NNTB) 3 to 16). Beta-blockers (metoprolol) also significantly reduced atrial fibrillation recurrences (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, NNTB 9).All analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse affects and all but amiodarone, dronedarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia. Only 11 trials reported data on stroke. None of them found any significant difference with the exception of a single trial than found less strokes in the group treated with dronedarone compared to placebo. This finding was not confirmed in others studies on dronedarone.We could not analyse heart failure and use of anticoagulation because few original studies reported on these measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Several class IA, IC and III drugs, as well as class II drugs (beta-blockers), are moderately effective in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. However, they increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and some of them (disopyramide, quinidine and sotalol) may increase mortality. Possible benefits on clinically relevant outcomes (stroke, embolism, heart failure) remain to be established.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Cause of Death; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Stroke
PubMed: 25820938
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005049.pub4 -
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 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Feb 2015We performed a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy of different drug therapies for the termination of stable, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy of different drug therapies for the termination of stable, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT).
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane for trials from 1965 through July 2013 using a search strategy derived from the following clinical question in PICO format:
PATIENTS
Adults (≥18 years) with stable monomorphic VT;
INTERVENTION
Intravenous antidysrhythmic drug; Comparator: Intravenous lidocaine or amiodarone;
OUTCOME
Termination of VT. For all drug comparisons, we calculated relative risks (RR; 95% CI) and number needed to treat (NNT, 95% CI) between drugs. We also evaluated the methodological quality of the studies.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 219 articles by PubMed and 390 articles by EMBASE. 3 prospective studies (n=93 patients) and 2 retrospective studies (n=173 patients) met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. From the prospective studies, RR of VT termination of procainamide versus lidocaine was 3.7 (1.3-10.5); ajmaline versus lidocaine, RR=5.3 (1.4-20.5); and sotalol versus lidocaine, RR=3.9 (1.3-11.5). From the retrospective studies: procainamide versus lidocaine, RR=2.2 (1.2-4.0); and procainamide versus amiodarone RR=4.3 (0.8-23.6). All 5 reviewed studies had quality issues, including potential bias for randomisation and concealment.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited available evidence from small heterogeneous human studies, for the treatment of stable, monomorphic VT, procainamide, ajmaline and sotalol were all superior to lidocaine; amiodarone was not more effective than procainamide.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Tachycardia, Ventricular
PubMed: 24042252
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2013-202973 -
Critical Care (London, England) Aug 2013Antiarrhythmia agents have been used in the treatment of cardiac arrest, and we aimed to review the relevant clinical controlled trials to assess the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Antiarrhythmia agents have been used in the treatment of cardiac arrest, and we aimed to review the relevant clinical controlled trials to assess the effects of antiarrhythmics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
METHODS
We searched databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Clinical controlled trials that addressed the effects of antiarrhythmics (including amiodarone, lidocaine, magnesium, and other new potassium-channel blockers) on the outcomes of cardiac arrest were included. Data were collected independently by two authors. The risk ratio of each outcome was collected, and meta-analysis was used for data synthesis if appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ² test and the I² test.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials and seven observational trials were identified. Amiodarone (relative risk (RR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54 to 1.24), lidocaine (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.93 to 5.52), magnesium (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.24) and nifekalant were not shown to improve the survival to hospital discharge compared with placebo, but amiodarone, lidocaine, and nifekalant were shown to be beneficial to initial resuscitation, assessed by the rate of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital admission, with amiodarone being superior to lidocaine (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.57 to 2.86) and nifekalant (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.31). Bretylium and sotalol were not shown to be beneficial.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests that when administered during resuscitation, antiarrhythmia agents might not improve the survival to hospital discharge, but they might be beneficial to initial resuscitation. This is consistent with the AHA 2010 guidelines for resuscitation and cardiovascular emergency, but more studies with good methodologic quality and large numbers of patients are still needed to make further assessment.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Arrest; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23938138
DOI: 10.1186/cc12852