-
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 -
Global Heart May 2020Major structural cardiovascular diseases are associated with cardiac arrhythmias, but their full spectrum remains unknown in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which we addressed...
UNLABELLED
Major structural cardiovascular diseases are associated with cardiac arrhythmias, but their full spectrum remains unknown in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which we addressed in this systematic review. Atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) prevalence is 16-22% in heart failure, 10-28% in rheumatic heart disease, 3-7% in cardiology admissions, but <1% in the general population. Use of oral anticoagulation is heterogenous (9-79%) across SSA. The epidemiology of sudden cardiac arrest/death is less characterized in SSA. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is challenging, owing to low awareness and lack of equipment for life-support. About 18% of SSA countries have no cardiac implantable electronic devices services, leaving hundreds of millions of people without any access to treatment for advanced bradyarrhythmias, and implant rates are more than 200-fold lower than in the western world. Management of tachyarrhythmias is largely non-invasive (about 80% AF/AFL via rate-controlled strategy only), as electrophysiological study and catheter ablation centers are almost non-existent in most countries.
HIGHLIGHTS
- Atrial fibrillation/flutter prevalence is 16-22% in heart failure, 10-28% in rheumatic heart disease, 3-7% in cardiology admissions, and <1% in the general population in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).- Rates of oral anticoagulation use for CHA2DS2VASC score ≥2 are very diverse (9-79%) across SSA countries.- Data on sudden cardiac arrest are scant in SSA with low cardiopulmonary resuscitation awareness.- Low rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices insertions and rarity of invasive arrhythmia treatment centers are seen in SSA, relative to the high-income countries.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Humans; Morbidity
PubMed: 32923331
DOI: 10.5334/gh.808 -
European Journal of Clinical... Feb 2021The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Arrhythmias are prevalent...
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Arrhythmias are prevalent and reportedly, the second most common complication. Several mechanistic pathways are proposed to explain the pro-arrhythmic effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. A number of treatment approaches have been trialled, each with its inherent unique challenges. This rapid systematic review aimed to examine the current incidence and available treatment of arrhythmias in COVID-19, as well as barriers to implementation.
METHODS
Our search of scientific databases identified relevant published studies from 1 January 2000 until 1 June 2020. We also searched Google Scholar for grey literature. We identified 1729 publications of which 1704 were excluded.
RESULTS
The incidence and nature of arrhythmias in the setting of COVID-19 were poorly documented across studies. The cumulative incidence of arrhythmia across studies of hospitalised patients was 6.9%. Drug-induced long QT syndrome secondary to antimalarial and antimicrobial therapy was a significant contributor to arrhythmia formation, with an incidence of 14.15%. Torsades de pointes (TdP) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) were reported. Treatment strategies aim to minimise this through risk stratification and regular monitoring of corrected QT interval (QTc).
CONCLUSION
Patients with SARS-CoV-2 are at an increased risk of arrhythmias. Drug therapy is pro-arrhythmogenic and may result in TdP and SCD in these patients. Risk assessment and regular QTc monitoring are imperative for safety during the treatment course. Further studies are needed to guide future decision-making.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimalarials; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Azithromycin; Bradycardia; COVID-19; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Electric Countershock; Hospitalization; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Incidence; Long QT Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Torsades de Pointes; Ventricular Fibrillation; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33043453
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13428 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Arrhythmic events such as atrial fibrillation (AF) are tightly associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF). Previous studies have shown inconsistent results...
Effect of Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter Protein 2 Inhibitors on Arrhythmia in Heart Failure Patients With or Without Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
AIM
Arrhythmic events such as atrial fibrillation (AF) are tightly associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF). Previous studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the association between sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the risk of arrhythmia. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of SGLT2i treatment with arrhythmia outcomes in clinical trials of patients with HF.
METHODS
We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and JAMA databases to identify appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SGLT2i interventions. Endpoint outcomes included AF, atrial flutter (AFL), AF/AFL, ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), VF/VT, and bradycardia. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis of all outcomes. The risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed by using the Cochrane tool and assessment framework.
RESULTS
Out of 1,725 citations, 9 trials were included in this study, with follow-up from 4 weeks to 52 weeks for 10,344 participants (mean age 68.27 years; 69.62% of participants were men). Compared with placebo, SGLT2i reduced the incidence of AF by 37% [ratio risk (RR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.87; < 0.05] and AF/AFL by 34% (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.49-0.90; < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
SGLT2i can reduce the risk of cardiac arrhythmias, particularly the AF. Our study provides strong evidence for recommending the use of SGLT2i in patients with HF.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42022296696.
PubMed: 35665272
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.902923 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anesthesia, General; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cause of Death; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31556094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013438 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update and assesses the evidence in cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies with 7768 participants; six studies were quasi-randomized and the remaining were RCTs. All participants were undergoing cardiac surgery, and in most studies, at least some of the participants were previously taking beta-blockers. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, sotalol, esmolol, landiolol, acebutolol, timolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and atenolol. In twelve studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in nine studies this was before surgery, in 20 studies during surgery, and in the remaining studies beta-blockers were started postoperatively. Overall, we found that most studies did not report sufficient details for us to adequately assess risk of bias. In particular, few studies reported methods used to randomize participants to groups. In some studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period, and all studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. No studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. We judged 68% studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.Study authors reported few deaths (7 per 1000 in both the intervention and control groups), and we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.90; 29 studies, 4099 participants). For myocardial infarctions, we found no evidence of a difference in events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 25 studies, 3946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Few study authors reported cerebrovascular events, and the evidence was uncertain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.67; 5 studies, 1471 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on a control risk of 54 per 1000, we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce episodes of ventricular arrhythmias by 32 episodes per 1000 (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63; 12 studies, 2296 participants). For atrial fibrillation or flutter, there may be 163 fewer incidences with beta-blockers, based on a control risk of 327 incidences per 1000 (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 40 studies, 5650 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence for bradycardia and hypotension was less certain. We found that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to bradycardia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.91; 12 studies, 1640 participants; low-certainty evidence), or hypotension (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.80; 10 studies, 1538 participants; low-certainty evidence).We used GRADE to downgrade the certainty of evidence. Owing to studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain, we downgraded each outcome for study limitations. Based on effect size calculations in the previous review, we found an insufficient number of participants in all outcomes (except atrial fibrillation) and, for some outcomes, we noted a wide confidence interval; therefore, we also downgraded outcomes owing to imprecision. The evidence for atrial fibrillation and length of hospital stay had a moderate level of statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain, and we, therefore, downgraded these outcomes for inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of a difference in early all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, hypotension and bradycardia. However, there may be a reduction in atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias when beta-blockers are used. A larger sample size is likely to increase the certainty of this evidence. Four studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31544227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013435