Intensive care medicine · 2023
Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Balik Martin, Maly Michal, Brozek Tomas, Rulisek Jan, Porizka Michal, Sachl Robert, Otahal Michal, Brestovansky Petr, Svobodova Eva, Flaksa Marek, Stach Zdenek, Horejsek Jan, Volny Lukas, Jurisinova Ivana, Novotny Adam, Trachta Pavel, Kunstyr Jan, Kopecky Petr, Tencer Tomas, Pazout Jaroslav, Belohlavek Jan, Duska Frantisek, Krajcova Adela, Waldauf Petr
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared.
METHODS: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence.
RESULTS: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.
METHODS: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence.
RESULTS: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.