Esmolol Compared with Amiodarone in the Treatment of Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation (RAF): An Emergency Medicine External Validity Study

Diagnosis and Treatment of New-Onset Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation

This article reviews medical and surgical risk factors for developing atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained dysrhythmia in the United States. Evidence for assessment and management of patients with AF, including AF newly identified in the preoperative clinic, immediately preoperatively, intraoperatively, and unstable AF, is presented. A stepwise approach to guide anesthetic decision-making in the assessment of newly identified preoperative AF is proposed. Anesthetic considerations, including the potential impacts of anesthetic and vasopressor selection, and current evidence related to rate control and rhythm control via pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion as well as anticoagulation strategies are discussed.

Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Efficacy of Antiarrhythmics in the Pharmacological Cardioversion of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

PURPOSE

Since atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the major arrhythmias managed in hospitals worldwide, it has a major impact on public health. The guidelines agree on the desirability of cardioverting paroxysmal AF episodes. This meta-analysis aims to answer the question of which antiarrhythmic agent is most effective in cardioverting a paroxysmal AF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, were performed, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling a population of unselected adult patients with a paroxysmal AF that compared at least two pharmacological regimes to restore the sinus rhythm or a cardioversion agent against a placebo. The main outcome was efficacy in restoring sinus rhythm.

RESULTS

Sixty-one RCTs (7988 patients) were included in the quantitative analysis [deviance information criterion (DIC) 272.57; I² = 3%]. Compared with the placebo, the association verapamil-quinidine shows the highest SUCRA rank score (87%), followed by antazoline (86%), vernakalant (85%), tedisamil at high dose (i.e., 0.6 mg/kg; 80%), amiodarone-ranolazine (80%), lidocaine (78%), dofetilide (77%), and intravenous flecainide (71%). Taking into account the degree of evidence of each individual comparison between pharmacological agents, we have drawn up a ranking of pharmacological agents from the most effective to the least effective.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparing the antiarrhythmic agents used to restore sinus rhythm in the case of paroxysmal AF, vernakalant, amiodarone-ranolazine, flecainide, and ibutilide are the most effective medications. The verapamil-quinidine combination seems promising, though few RCTs have studied it. The incidence of side effects must be taken into account in the choice of antiarrhythmic in clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2022, CRD42022369433 (Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022369433 ).

Effects of Amiodarone and Esmolol for Heart Rate and Cardiovascular Changes

Objective

To probe into the effects of amiodarone and esmolol for heart rate disorders and myocardial infarction.

Methods

76 cases of cardiopathy in our hospital from July 2019 to October 2021 were analyzed for myocardial infarction. The control group applied amiodarone treatment. Blood pressure, treatment effect, adverse reactions, myocardial marker levels, electrocardiogram, and heart function indicators were compared.

Results

There were no statistical differences in two groups of diastolic pressure (P > 0.05). The analysis of the systolic pressure in the study group was greater than the control group (P < 0.05); The effective rate was higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05); the incidence of adverse reactions in the study group and control group was 28.95% and 31.58%, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between groups (P > 0.05). The standards of markers were significantly reduced compared with the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the heart rate of the two groups was significantly reduced, and the QT intervals were significantly shortened. But compared with the control group, reduction was larger in the research group (P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the resolution rate was higher (P < 0.05). After treatment, the two groups of quality of life were significantly increased, and compared with the control group, the increase in the quality of life of the study group was greater (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Application of amiodarone and esmolol joint treatment can improve the quality of life, improve the level of heart function and myocardial marker, and can reduce Q-T intervals and prognosis. Therefore, amiodarone and esmolol treatment is worth promoting.

Management of new onset atrial fibrillation in critically unwell adult patients: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically unwell patients. NOAF can lead to worsening haemodynamic compromise, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and increased mortality. The aim of this systematic review and narrative synthesis is to evaluate the non-pharmacological and pharmacological management strategies for NOAF in critically unwell patients.

METHODS

Of 1782 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion, including 4 RCTs and 26 observational studies. Efficacy of direct current cardioversion, amiodarone, β-antagonists, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, magnesium, and less commonly used agents such as ibutilide are reported.

RESULTS

Cardioversion rates of 48% were reported for direct current cardioversion; however, re-initiation of NOAF was as high as 23.4%. Amiodarone was the most commonly reported intervention with cardioversion rates ranging from 18% to 95.8% followed by β-antagonists with cardioversion rates from 40% to 92.3%. Amiodarone was more effective than diltiazem (odds ratio [OR]=1.91, P=0.32) at cardioversion. Short-acting β-antagonists esmolol and landiolol were more effective compared with diltiazem at cardioversion (OR=3.55, P=0.04) and HR control (OR=3.2, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was significant variation between studies with regard to the definition of successful cardioversion and heart rate control, making comparisons between studies and interventions difficult. Future RCTs comparing individual anti-arrhythmic agents, in particular magnesium, amiodarone, and β-antagonists, and the role of anticoagulation in critically unwell patients are required. There is also an urgent need for a core outcome dataset for studies of new onset atrial fibrillation to allow comparisons between different anti-arrhythmic strategies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121739.

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity

Background

Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial.

Methods

The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset.

Results

Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14.

Conclusion

The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice.

Trial registration

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012.