-
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022To evaluate the efficiency of amiodarone in preventing the occurrence of reperfusion ventricular fibrillation (RVF) after aortic cross-clamp (ACC) release in patients...
Effectiveness of Amiodarone in Preventing the Occurrence of Reperfusion Ventricular Fibrillation After the Release of Aortic Cross-Clamp in Open-Heart Surgery Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficiency of amiodarone in preventing the occurrence of reperfusion ventricular fibrillation (RVF) after aortic cross-clamp (ACC) release in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.
METHODS
We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases through January 2021 for relevant studies addressing the efficacy of amiodarone in preventing RVF after ACC release in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A complete statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to express the results of dichotomous outcomes using random or fixed-effect models. The chi-square test and test were used to calculate heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Seven studies (856 enrolled patients; 311 in the amiodarone group, 268 in the lidocaine group, and 277 in the placebo group) were selected for the meta-analysis. The incidence of RVF was significantly decreased in the amiodarone group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.50-0.94, = 0.02). However, amiodarone and lidocaine did not confer any significant difference (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.61-1.59, = 0.94). The percentage of patients requiring electric defibrillation counter shocks (DCSs) did not confer any significant difference between patients administered amiodarone and lidocaine or placebo (RR = 1.58, 95%CI: 0.29-8.74, = 0.60; RR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.27-1.10, = 0.09; respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone is more effective than a placebo in preventing RVF after ACC release in cardiac surgery. However, the amiodarone group required the same number of electrical DCSs to terminate RVF as the lidocaine or placebo groups.
PubMed: 35187132
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.821938 -
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 -
Circulation. Arrhythmia and... Dec 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Administration, Oral; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Rate; Humans; Recovery of Function; Tachycardia, Supraventricular; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34802256
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.121.010321 -
Current Cardiology Reviews 2022Junctional Ectopic Tachycardia (JET) is an arrhythmia originating from the AV junction, which may occur following congenital heart surgery, especially when the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Junctional Ectopic Tachycardia (JET) is an arrhythmia originating from the AV junction, which may occur following congenital heart surgery, especially when the intervention is near the atrioventricular junction.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of amiodarone, dexmedetomidine, and magnesium in preventing JET following congenital heart surgery.
METHODS
This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, where 11 electronic databases were searched from the date of inception to August 2020. The incidence of JET was calculated with the relative risk of 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Quality assessment of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.
RESULTS
Eleven studies met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Amiodarone, dexmedetomidine, and magnesium significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative JET [Amiodarone: risk ratio 0.34; I2= 0%; Z=3.66 (P=0.0002); 95% CI 0.19-0.60. Dexmedetomidine: risk ratio 0.34; I2= 0%; Z=4.77 (P<0.00001); 95% CI 0.21-0.52. Magnesium: risk ratio 0.50; I2= 24%; Z=5.08 (P<0.00001); 95% CI 0.39-0.66].
CONCLUSION
All three drugs have shown promising results in reducing the incidence of JET. Our systematic review found that dexmedetomidine is better in reducing the length of ICU stays as well as mortality. In addition, dexmedetomidine also has the least pronounced side effects among the three. However, it should be noted that this conclusion was derived from studies with small sample sizes. Therefore, dexmedetomidine may be considered as the drug of choice for preventing JET.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Tachycardia, Ectopic Junctional
PubMed: 34082685
DOI: 10.2174/1573403X17666210603113430 -
JACC. Clinical Electrophysiology Jan 2021The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of renal denervation (RDN) in patients with refractory ventricular arrhythmias (VA)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of renal denervation (RDN) in patients with refractory ventricular arrhythmias (VA) or electrical storm (ES).
BACKGROUND
Although catheter ablation is efficacious for the treatment of structural heart disease ventricular tachycardia (VT), there are proportion of patients who have refractory VT despite multiple procedures. In this setting, novel adjunctive therapies such as renal denervation have been performed.
METHODS
A systematic review of published data was performed. Studies that evaluated patients undergoing RDN for VA or ES were included. Outcome measures of VA, sudden cardiac death, ES, or device therapy were required. Case reports, editorials, and conference presentations were excluded. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to explore change or final mean values in the study outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 328 articles were identified by the literature search. Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review, with a total of 121 pooled patients. The weighted mean age was 63.8 ± 13.1 years, ejection fraction 30.5 ± 10.3%, 76% were men, 99% were on a beta blocker, 79% were on amiodarone, 46% had previously undergone catheter ablation, and 8.3% had previously undergone cardiac sympathetic denervation. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant effect of RDN in reducing implantable cardiac defibrillator therapies, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -3.11 (p < 0.001). RDN also reduced the number of VA episodes (SMD -2.13; p < 0.001), antitachycardia pacing episodes (SMD -2.82; p = 0.002), and shocks (SMD -2.82; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
RDN is an effective treatment for refractory VAs and ES, although randomized data are lacking.
Topics: Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Humans; Kidney; Male; Middle Aged; Sympathectomy; Tachycardia, Ventricular
PubMed: 33478701
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.07.019 -
CJC Open Jan 2021Observational studies have identified inconsistent associations between chronic use of amiodarone and cancer-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies have identified inconsistent associations between chronic use of amiodarone and cancer-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate cancer risk among patients receiving amiodarone.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to May 1, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with follow-up ≥2 years that compared amiodarone (any dose) to any comparator (placebo, active pharmacologic or interventional comparator, or usual care), and reported ≥1 outcome of interest. We contacted authors of published chronic amiodarone trials for potentially unreported cancer outcomes. The primary outcome was cancer incidence. Secondary outcomes were cancer-related death and site-specific cancers. We determined risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity using . We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses for amiodarone indication, amiodarone dose, duration of therapy, and trial-level risk of bias.
RESULTS
From 1439 articles, we included 5 RCTs (n = 4357). Mean follow-up duration ranged from 21 to 37 months. We included previously unpublished cancer outcome data from 1 RCT. Our primary outcome was not reported in any RCT. There was no significant difference in cancer-related death between amiodarone (1.69%) and the comparator (1.75%) (risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.63; = 0%). There were no significant interactions from our subgroup or sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic amiodarone use did not increase cancer-related deaths. Data from RCTs do not support an increased risk of cancer-related harms with amiodarone use, and these concerns should not deter use of amiodarone when indicated.
PubMed: 33458637
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.09.013 -
Thrombosis Research Oct 2020Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists for treatment and prevention of arterial and venous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to Vitamin-K antagonists for treatment and prevention of arterial and venous thrombosis. Due to their novelty, pharmacokinetic DOAC drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that result in clinical adverse events have not been well-documented.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to systematically review reported pharmacokinetic DDIs resulting in clinical adverse events through documented observational evidence to better inform clinicians in clinical practice.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Ovid HealthStar was conducted through March 10th, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data from eligible articles according to pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles reporting bleeding or thrombotic outcomes in non-controlled (observational) settings resulting from suggested pharmacokinetic DOAC DDIs were included.
RESULTS
A total of 5567 citations were reviewed, of which 24 were included following data extraction. The majority were case reports (n = 21) documenting a single adverse event resulting from a suspected DOAC DDI, while the remaining papers were a case series (n = 1) and cohort studies (n = 2). The most commonly reported interacting drugs were amiodarone and ritonavir (bleeding), and phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine (thrombosis). Bleeding events more often resulted from a combined mechanism (P-glycoprotein AND CYP3A4 inhibition), whereas thrombotic events resulted from either combined OR single P-glycoprotein/CYP3A4 induction.
CONCLUSION
Current literature evaluating the real-world risk of DOAC DDIs is limited to few case reports and retrospective observational analyses. Clinicians are encouraged to continue to report suspected drug interactions resulting in adverse events.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Drug Interactions; Hemorrhage; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33213849
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.016 -
BMJ Open Oct 2020Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a potentially lethal and morbid complication after open heart surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a potentially lethal and morbid complication after open heart surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate metoprolol compared with other treatments for prophylaxis against POAF.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries for randomised controlled trials that evaluated metoprolol for preventing the occurrence of POAF after surgery against other treatments or placebo. Random-effects model was used for estimating the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Nine trials involving 1570 patients showed metoprolol reduced POAF compared with placebo (416 patients; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66; I²=21%; risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.10). However, metoprolol increased the risk of POAF compared with carvedilol (159 patients; RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.12; I²=4%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.20). There was no difference when compared with sotalol or amiodarone. The occurrence of cardiovascular conditions after drugs administration or death between the groups was not different. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high. Subgroup analysis and funnel plot were not performed.
CONCLUSIONS
Metoprolol is effective in preventing POAF compared with placebo and showed no difference with class III antiarrhythmic drugs. Death and thromboembolism are associated with open heart surgery, but not significant in relation to the use of metoprolol.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019131585.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Metoprolol; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33130564
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038364 -
Kardiologia Polska Oct 2020Appropriate pharmacotherapy during advanced resuscitation procedures may affect the return of spontaneous circulation. Current guidelines on cardiopulmonary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Appropriate pharmacotherapy during advanced resuscitation procedures may affect the return of spontaneous circulation. Current guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend amiodarone for shock‑refractory cardiac arrest or when lidocaine is not available.
AIMS
The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the available literature and to conduct a meta‑‑analysis to determine the effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcome after shock‑refractory cardiac arrest.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened randomized and quasi‑randomized controlled trials as well as cohort and cross‑sectional trials evaluating amiodarone or lidocaine for the treatment of adults with cardiac arrest.
RESULTS
After screening 682 unique references, 8 were selected for this meta‑analysis. A higher number of cases with return of spontaneous circulation was observed in the amiodarone group compared with the lidocaine group (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.21; P = 0.75). A similar relationship was observed for survival to hospital discharge (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92-1.38; P = 0.26), as well as survival with favorable neurological outcome (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39; P = 0.35).
CONCLUSIONS
We found no statistically significant survival benefit of resuscitation with amiodarone compared with lidocaine. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to identify which antiarrhythmic drug should be use in shock‑refractory cardiac arrest.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Lidocaine; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
PubMed: 32627999
DOI: 10.33963/KP.15483 -
The Journal of Innovations in Cardiac... Apr 2020Amiodarone is commonly used for a variety of arrhythmias and, in some parts of the world, is the only available antiarrhythmic drug (AAD). Yet, amiodarone is known to...
Amiodarone is commonly used for a variety of arrhythmias and, in some parts of the world, is the only available antiarrhythmic drug (AAD). Yet, amiodarone is known to have a wide range of potential side effects, many of which are dose- and duration-dependent. We sought to study the incidence of side effects leading to the discontinuation of low-dose amiodarone, arbitrarily defined as 200 mg/day or less, and very-low-dose amiodarone, defined as 100 mg/day or less. In this study, literature databases were searched through June 2019. Studies that reported the incidence or prevalence of side effects of amiodarone were included. Effect estimates from individual studies were extracted and combined using the random-effects generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. A total of 10 observational cohort studies involving 901 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled estimated incidence of overall side effects for low-dose amiodarone was 0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12-0.22]. In addition, the pooled estimated incidence of side effects requiring medication discontinuation was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.03-0.11). As compared with 200 mg/day of amiodarone, the pooled estimated incidence of overall side effects was 0.11 (95% CI: 0.04-0.27), while the incidence of side effects requiring medication discontinuation was 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.06) for the dose of 100 mg/day. In conclusion, very-low-dose amiodarone displays a low incidence of significant side effects requiring medication discontinuation.
PubMed: 32368381
DOI: 10.19102/icrm.2020.110403