-
PloS One 2018During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the results of these reviews suggested that digoxin seems to increase the risk of all-cause mortality regardless of concomitant heart failure. Our objective was to assess the benefits and harms of digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter based on randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, BIOSIS for eligible trials comparing digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in October 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were heart failure, stroke, heart rate control, and conversion to sinus rhythm. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and chose the more conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
28 trials (n = 2223 participants) were included. All were at high risk of bias and reported only short-term follow-up. When digoxin was compared with all control interventions in one analysis, we found no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.82; TSA-adjusted confidence interval (CI), 0.02 to 31.2; I2 = 0%); serious adverse events (RR, 1.65; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.24 to 11.5; I2 = 0%); quality of life; heart failure (RR, 1.05; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 1141.8; I2 = 51%); and stroke (RR, 2.27; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 7887.3; I2 = 17%). Our analyses on acute heart rate control (within 6 hours of treatment onset) showed firm evidence of digoxin being superior compared with placebo (mean difference (MD), -12.0 beats per minute (bpm); TSA-adjusted CI, -17.2 to -6.76; I2 = 0%) and inferior compared with beta blockers (MD, 20.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, 14.2 to 27.2; I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses on acute heart rate control showed that digoxin was inferior compared with both calcium antagonists (MD, 21.0 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -30.3 to 72.3) and with amiodarone (MD, 14.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -0.58 to 30.0; I2 = 42%), but in both comparisons TSAs showed that we lacked information. Meta-analysis on acute conversion to sinus rhythm showed that digoxin compared with amiodarone reduced the probability of converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm, but TSA showed that we lacked information (RR, 0.54; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.13 to 2.21; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, heart failure, and stroke are unclear based on current evidence. Digoxin seems to be superior compared with placebo in reducing the heart rate, but inferior compared with beta blockers. The long-term effect of digoxin is unclear, as no trials reported long-term follow-up. More trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors assessing the clinical effects of digoxin are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016052935.
Topics: Aged; Amiodarone; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Comorbidity; Digoxin; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mortality; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29518134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193924 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Adult; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Cause of Death; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Humans; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 26646017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008093.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation (electrocardiogram sector is higher than baseline). Ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction is associated with high risk of mortality. The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic lidocaine in preventing death among people with myocardial infarction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 13 April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1986 to 13 April 2015). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 13 April 2013) and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction. We considered all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction as primary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model and conducted trial sequential analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 37 randomised controlled trials involving 11,948 participants. These trials compared lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention, disopyramide, mexiletine, tocainide, propafenone, amiodarone, dimethylammonium chloride, aprindine and pirmenol. Overall, trials were underpowered and had high risk of bias. Ninety-seven per cent of trials (36/37) were conducted without an a priori sample size estimation. Ten trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Trials were conducted in 17 countries, and intravenous intervention was the most frequent route of administration.In trials involving participants with proven or non-proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences regarding all-cause mortality (213/5879 (3.62%) vs 199/5848 (3.40%); RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; participants = 11727; studies = 18; I(2) = 15%); low-quality evidence), cardiac mortality (69/4184 (1.65%) vs 62/4093 (1.51%); RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.50; participants = 8277; studies = 12; I(2) = 12%; low-quality evidence) and prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation (76/5128 (1.48%) vs 103/4987 (2.01%); RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; participants = 10115; studies = 16; I(2) = 18%; low-quality evidence). In terms of sinus bradycardia, lidocaine effect is imprecise compared with effects of placebo or no intervention (55/1346 (4.08%) vs 49/1203 (4.07%); RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.80; participants = 2549; studies = 8; I(2) = 21%; very low-quality evidence). In trials involving only participants with proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (148/2747 (5.39%) vs 135/2506 (5.39%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; participants = 5253; studies = 16; I(2) = 9%; low-quality evidence). No significant differences were noted between lidocaine and any other antiarrhythmic drug in terms of all-cause mortality and ventricular fibrillation. Data on overall survival 30 days after myocardial infarction were not reported. Lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention increased risk of asystole (35/3393 (1.03%) vs 14/3443 (0.41%); RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.26; participants = 6826; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and dizziness/drowsiness (74/1259 (5.88%) vs 16/1274 (1.26%); RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.47; participants = 2533; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. Trial sequential analyses suggest that additional trials may not be needed for reliable conclusions to be drawn regarding these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane review found evidence of low quality to suggest that prophylactic lidocaine has very little or no effect on mortality or ventricular fibrillation in people with acute myocardial infarction. The safety profile is unclear. This conclusion is based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. However (disregarding the risk of bias), trial sequential analysis suggests that additional trials may not be needed to disprove an intervention effect of 20% relative risk reduction. Smaller risk reductions might require additional higher trials.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Humans; Lidocaine; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 26295202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008553.pub2 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Atrial fibrillation is a common post-operative complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with an increased risk of post-operative stroke, increased length of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation is a common post-operative complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with an increased risk of post-operative stroke, increased length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, healthcare costs and mortality. Numerous trials have evaluated various pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylactic interventions for their efficacy in preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation. We conducted an update to a 2004 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of these interventions.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia after cardiac surgery. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects on post-operative stroke or cerebrovascular accident, mortality, cardiovascular mortality, length of hospital stay and cost of treatment during the hospital stay.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of ControlLed Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2011), MEDLINE (from 1946 to July 2011), EMBASE (from 1974 to July 2011) and CINAHL (from 1981 to July 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were allocated to pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of post-operative atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia, except digoxin, potassium (K(+)), or steroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently abstracted study data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
One hundred and eighteen studies with 138 treatment groups and 17,364 participants were included in this review. Fifty-seven of these studies were included in the original version of this review while 61 were added, including 27 on interventions that were not considered in the original version. Interventions included amiodarone, beta-blockers, sotalol, magnesium, atrial pacing and posterior pericardiotomy. Each of the studied interventions significantly reduced the rate of post-operative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery compared with a control. Beta-blockers (odds ratio (OR) 0.33; 95% confidence interval) CI 0.26 to 0.43; I(2) = 55%) and sotalol (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.43; I(2) = 3%) appear to have similar efficacy while magnesium's efficacy (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73; I(2) = 51%) may be slightly less. Amiodarone (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; I(2) = 63%), atrial pacing (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61; I(2) = 50%) and posterior pericardiotomy (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; I(2) = 66%) were all found to be effective. Prophylactic intervention decreased the hospital length of stay by approximately two-thirds of a day and decreased the cost of hospital treatment by roughly $1250 US. Intervention was also found to reduce the odds of post-operative stroke, though this reduction did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; I(2) = 0%). No significant effect on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality was demonstrated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylaxis to prevent atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery with any of the studied pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions may be favored because of its reduction in the rate of atrial fibrillation, decrease in the length of stay and cost of hospital treatment and a possible decrease in the rate of stroke. However, this review is limited by the quality of the available data and heterogeneity between the included studies. Selection of appropriate interventions may depend on the individual patient situation and should take into consideration adverse effects and the cost associated with each approach.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Magnesium Compounds; Pericardiectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sotalol; Tachycardia, Supraventricular
PubMed: 23440790
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003611.pub3 -
International Journal of General... 2012Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. It occurs in 1%-2% of the general population and its prevalence increases with age. Dronedarone, a...
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. It occurs in 1%-2% of the general population and its prevalence increases with age. Dronedarone, a noniodinated benzofuran similar to amiodarone, was developed as an antiarrhythmic agent for patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of our systematic review was to critically evaluate randomized controlled trials that compared treatment with dronedarone versus placebo or amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Central) were searched up to November 2011 with no language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials in which dronedarone was compared to placebo or other drugs in patients with AF. Internal and external validity was assessed.
RESULTS
We identified seven papers corresponding to eight randomized controlled trials. The DAFNE, EURIDIS/ADONIS, and ATHENA trials demonstrated a reduction of AF recurrence with dronedarone as compared to placebo in patients with nonpermanent AF. The DIONYSOS study showed that dronedarone is less effective for the prevention of recurrent AF but improved tolerability as compared to amiodarone. Considering patients with permanent AF, the ERATO trial showed that dronedarone had rate-control effects while the PALLAS study was stopped early since stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes were significantly more frequent in subjects treated with dronedarone as compared to placebo. The ANDROMEDA trial included patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure and was terminated early because of excess of deaths in the dronedarone group.
CONCLUSION
Like most antiarrhythmic drugs, dronedarone reduces the recurrence of AF in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF as compared to placebo. However, relapse rates in the first year of therapy are high. Moreover, dronedarone showed to be less effective than amiodarone. Finally, dronedarone should be avoided in patients with permanent AF and a high risk for cardiovascular events or severe congestive heart failure.
PubMed: 22701087
DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S16674 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of mortality in resource-rich countries, and is becoming a major cause of morbidity and mortality in resource-poor... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of mortality in resource-rich countries, and is becoming a major cause of morbidity and mortality in resource-poor countries. Secondary prevention in this context is long-term treatment to prevent recurrent cardiac morbidity and mortality in people who have had either a prior acute myocardial infarction (MI) or acute coronary syndrome, or who are at high risk due to severe coronary artery stenoses or prior coronary surgical procedures. Secondary prevention in people with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within the past 6 months is not included.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of antithrombotic treatment; other drug treatments; cholesterol reduction; blood pressure reduction; non-drug treatments; and revascularisation procedures? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 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 137 systematic reviews or RCTs 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: advice to eat less fat, advice to eat more fibre, advice to increase consumption of fish oils, amiodarone, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, angiotensin II receptor blockers plus ACE inhibitors, antioxidant vitamin combinations, antiplatelet agents, aspirin, beta-blockers, beta-carotene, blood pressure reduction, calcium channel blockers, cardiac rehabilitation including exercise, class I antiarrhythmic agents, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), fibrates, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), Mediterranean diet, multivitamins, non-specific cholesterol reduction, oral anticoagulants, oral glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), psychosocial treatment, smoking cessation, statins, vitamin C, and vitamin E.
Topics: Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; Coronary Artery Bypass; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Stenosis; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21875445
DOI: No ID Found