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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |