Early out-of-hospital lidocaine administration decreases the incidence of primary ventricular fibrillation in acute myocardial infarction

Prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction

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 The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected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.

Novel drug development opportunity for relaxin in acute myocardial infarction: evidences from a swine model

The hormone relaxin has been shown to cause coronary vasodilation and to prevent ischemia/reperfusion-induced cardiac injury in rodents. This study provides evidence that relaxin, used as an adjunctive drug to coronary reperfusion, reduces the functional, biochemical, and histopathological signs of myocardial injury in an in vivo swine model of heart ischemia/reperfusion, currently used to test cardiotropic drugs for myocardial infarction. Human recombinant relaxin, given at reperfusion at doses of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 microg/kg b.wt. after a 30-min ischemia, caused a dose-related reduction of key markers of myocardial damage (serum myoglobin, CK-MB, troponin T) and cardiomyocyte apoptosis (caspase 3, TUNEL assay), as well as of cardiomyocyte contractile dysfunction (myofibril hypercontraction). Compared with the controls, relaxin also increased the uptake of the viability tracer 201Thallium and improved ventricular performance (cardiac index). Relaxin likely acts by reducing oxygen free radical-induced myocardial injury (malondialdehyde, tissue calcium overload) and inflammatory leukocyte recruitment (myeloperoxidase). The present findings show that human relaxin, given as a drug to counteract reperfusion-induced cardiac injury, affords a clear-cut protection to the heart of swine with induced myocardial infarction. The findings also provide background to future clinical trials with relaxin as adjunctive therapy to catheter-based coronary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Searching for the evidence in pre-hospital care: a review of randomised controlled trials. On behalf of the Ambulance Response Time Sub-Group of the National Ambulance Advisory Committee

OBJECTIVES

To identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluate aspects of pre-hospital care; to perform categorisation by theme; to compare the sensitivity and precision of the search databases.

DATA SOURCES

August 1997 updates of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, using the Datastar online system. Papers published in 1987 or later were included, with no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

A trial was eligible for inclusion if it was judged, by two independent and blinded assessors, that participants followed up in the trial were definitely or possibly assigned prospectively to one of two or more alternative forms of healthcare with random allocation or a quasi-random method of allocation.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 849 papers, of which 569 (67%) were in MEDLINE and 486 (57%) in EMBASE. Forty one (5%) were confirmed as reports of RCTs or quasi-RCTs, and the total number of individual trials was 38. Ten of these trials dealt with thrombolytic drugs; 14 were concerned with other drugs, 12 with equipment, and two with other interventions. Four trials were based on a sample size of more than 1000, and seven reported a statistically significant effect on mortality. All 41 papers were in EMBASE, and all but one were also in MEDLINE.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence based policy making with respect to the organisation of pre-hospital services cannot depend on RCTs. In the current relative absence of such evidence, practitioners and decision makers must use alternative information sources. A future review could examine a broader range of literature and be based on a wider search of published and unpublished material.