Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study

INTRODUCTION: Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balik, Martin, Waldauf, Petr, Maly, Michal, Matousek, Vojtech, Brozek, Tomas, Rulisek, Jan, Porizka, Michal, Sachl, Robert, Otahal, Michal, Brestovansky, Petr, Svobodova, Eva, Flaksa, Marek, Stach, Zdenek, Pazout, Jaroslav, Duska, Frantisek, Smid, Ondrej, Stritesky, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6731952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31481571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031678
_version_ 1783449763095511040
author Balik, Martin
Waldauf, Petr
Maly, Michal
Matousek, Vojtech
Brozek, Tomas
Rulisek, Jan
Porizka, Michal
Sachl, Robert
Otahal, Michal
Brestovansky, Petr
Svobodova, Eva
Flaksa, Marek
Stach, Zdenek
Pazout, Jaroslav
Duska, Frantisek
Smid, Ondrej
Stritesky, Martin
author_facet Balik, Martin
Waldauf, Petr
Maly, Michal
Matousek, Vojtech
Brozek, Tomas
Rulisek, Jan
Porizka, Michal
Sachl, Robert
Otahal, Michal
Brestovansky, Petr
Svobodova, Eva
Flaksa, Marek
Stach, Zdenek
Pazout, Jaroslav
Duska, Frantisek
Smid, Ondrej
Stritesky, Martin
author_sort Balik, Martin
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a successful cardioversion and help in the decision on rhythm or rate control strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial includes septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia, but without severe impairment of the left ventricular ejection fraction. After baseline echocardiography, the patient is randomised to receive a bolus and maintenance dose of either amiodarone or propafenone. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcomes are the percentages of patients that needed rescue treatments (DC cardioversion or unblinding and crossover of the antiarrhythmics), the recurrence of arrhythmias, intensive care unit mortality, 28-day and 1-year mortality. In the posthoc analysis, we separately assess subgroups of patients with pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In the exploratory part of the study, we assess whether the presence of a transmitral diastolic A wave and its higher velocity-time integral is predictive for the sustainability of mechanical SR and whether the indexed left atrial endsystolic volume is predictive of recurrent arrhythmia. Considering that the restoration of SR within 24 hours occurred in 74% of the amiodarone-treated patients and in 89% of the patients treated with propafenone, we plan to include 200 patients to have an 80% chance to demonstrate the superiority of propafenone at p=0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is recruiting patients according to its second protocol version approved by the University Hospital Ethical Board on the 6 October 2017 (No. 1691/16S-IV). The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03029169.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6731952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67319522019-09-20 Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study Balik, Martin Waldauf, Petr Maly, Michal Matousek, Vojtech Brozek, Tomas Rulisek, Jan Porizka, Michal Sachl, Robert Otahal, Michal Brestovansky, Petr Svobodova, Eva Flaksa, Marek Stach, Zdenek Pazout, Jaroslav Duska, Frantisek Smid, Ondrej Stritesky, Martin BMJ Open Intensive Care INTRODUCTION: Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a successful cardioversion and help in the decision on rhythm or rate control strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial includes septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia, but without severe impairment of the left ventricular ejection fraction. After baseline echocardiography, the patient is randomised to receive a bolus and maintenance dose of either amiodarone or propafenone. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcomes are the percentages of patients that needed rescue treatments (DC cardioversion or unblinding and crossover of the antiarrhythmics), the recurrence of arrhythmias, intensive care unit mortality, 28-day and 1-year mortality. In the posthoc analysis, we separately assess subgroups of patients with pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In the exploratory part of the study, we assess whether the presence of a transmitral diastolic A wave and its higher velocity-time integral is predictive for the sustainability of mechanical SR and whether the indexed left atrial endsystolic volume is predictive of recurrent arrhythmia. Considering that the restoration of SR within 24 hours occurred in 74% of the amiodarone-treated patients and in 89% of the patients treated with propafenone, we plan to include 200 patients to have an 80% chance to demonstrate the superiority of propafenone at p=0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is recruiting patients according to its second protocol version approved by the University Hospital Ethical Board on the 6 October 2017 (No. 1691/16S-IV). The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03029169. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6731952/ /pubmed/31481571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031678 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Intensive Care
Balik, Martin
Waldauf, Petr
Maly, Michal
Matousek, Vojtech
Brozek, Tomas
Rulisek, Jan
Porizka, Michal
Sachl, Robert
Otahal, Michal
Brestovansky, Petr
Svobodova, Eva
Flaksa, Marek
Stach, Zdenek
Pazout, Jaroslav
Duska, Frantisek
Smid, Ondrej
Stritesky, Martin
Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
title Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
title_full Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
title_short Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
title_sort efficacy and safety of 1c class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study
topic Intensive Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6731952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31481571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031678
work_keys_str_mv AT balikmartin efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT waldaufpetr efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT malymichal efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT matousekvojtech efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT brozektomas efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT rulisekjan efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT porizkamichal efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT sachlrobert efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT otahalmichal efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT brestovanskypetr efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT svobodovaeva efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT flaksamarek efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT stachzdenek efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT pazoutjaroslav efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT duskafrantisek efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT smidondrej efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy
AT striteskymartin efficacyandsafetyof1cclassantiarrhythmicagentpropafenoneforsupraventriculararrhythmiasinsepticshockcomparedtoamiodaroneprotocolofaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindstudy