Literature DB >> 2688587

Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction.

L K Hine1, N Laird, P Hewitt, T C Chalmers.   

Abstract

Although lidocaine prophylaxis reduces the incidence of ventricular fibrillation during acute myocardial infarction (AMI), randomized control trials (RCTs) have not demonstrated any significant mortality effect of this therapy. We conducted a meta-analysis of 14 RCTs of lidocaine prophylaxis during AMI to detect any mortality effect. Six prehospital- and eight hospital-phase RCTs that randomized totals of 7656 and 1407 patients, respectively, were selected and reviewed in a blinded fashion. Mortality data were evaluated according to therapy type, reporting interval, and patient category. The prehospital-phase RCTs showed no meaningful mortality effect (risk difference, 0.0184; 95% confidence interval, -0.048 to +0.012). The hospital-phase RCTs showed a statistically significant increase in mortality during the treatment period for lidocaine recipients (risk difference, 0.029; 95% confidence interval, +0.004 to +0.055). These results confirm that lidocaine administered to monitored patients during the prehospital phase of AMI will not reduce mortality by a clinically important amount and suggest that lidocaine administered in the hospital phase of monitored, uncomplicated AMI may increase mortality among recipients with proved AMI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2688587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  29 in total

Review 1.  Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists.

Authors:  L R Harrold; T S Field; J H Gurwitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Amiodarone as compared to lidocaine for shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation.

Authors:  Bramah N Singh
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Dysrhythmias in acute myocardial infarction: how to treat, when to treat, and when not to treat.

Authors:  J A Lopez; A Massumi
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  1992

4.  Therapeutic fashion and publication bias: the case of anti-arrhythmic drugs in heart attack.

Authors:  John Hampton
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  Management of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly.

Authors:  D E Forman; M W Rich
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 6.  [Resuscitation after prehospital cardiovascular arrest].

Authors:  T Klingenheben; A M Zeiher; S Fichtlscherer
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 7.  Antiarrhythmic prophylaxis after acute myocardial infarction. Is lidocaine still useful?

Authors:  S Nattel; A Arenal
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  Applying the results of large clinical trials in the management of acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  J P Sweeney; G G Schwartz
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1996-03

Review 9.  Assembling comparison groups to assess the effects of health care.

Authors:  I Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Thomas C Chalmers (1917-1995): a pioneer of randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; Frances Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.