Literature DB >> 29699616

Propranolol Versus Metoprolol for Treatment of Electrical Storm in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

Sofia Chatzidou1, Christos Kontogiannis2, Diamantis I Tsilimigras3, Georgios Georgiopoulos1, Marinos Kosmopoulos3, Elektra Papadopoulou1, Georgios Vasilopoulos1, Stylianos Rokas1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electrical storm (ES), characterized by unrelenting recurrences of ventricular arrhythmias, is observed in approximately 30% of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and is associated with high mortality rates.
OBJECTIVES: Sympathetic blockade with β-blockers, usually in combination with intravenous (IV) amiodarone, have proved highly effective in the suppression of ES. In this study, we compared the efficacy of a nonselective β-blocker (propranolol) versus a β1-selective blocker (metoprolol) in the management of ES.
METHODS: Between 2011 and 2016, 60 ICD patients (45 men, mean age 65.0 ± 8.5 years) with ES developed within 24 h from admission were randomly assigned to therapy with either propranolol (160 mg/24 h, Group A) or metoprolol (200 mg/24 h, Group B), combined with IV amiodarone for 48 h.
RESULTS: Patients under propranolol therapy in comparison with metoprolol-treated individuals presented a 2.67 times decreased incidence rate (incidence rate ratio: 0.375; 95% confidence interval: 0.207 to 0.678; p = 0.001) of ventricular arrhythmic events (tachycardia or fibrillation) and a 2.34 times decreased rate of ICD discharges (incidence rate ratio: 0.428; 95% CI: 0.227 to 0.892; p = 0.004) during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay, after adjusting for age, sex, ejection fraction, New York Heart Association functional class, heart failure type, arrhythmia type, and arrhythmic events before ICU admission. At the end of the first 24-h treatment period, 27 of 30 (90.0%) patients in group A, while only 16 of 30 (53.3%) patients in group B were free of arrhythmic events (p = 0.03). The termination of arrhythmic events was 77.5% less likely in Group B compared with Group A (hazard ratio: 0.225; 95% CI: 0.112 to 0.453; p < 0.001). Time to arrhythmia termination and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the propranolol group (p < 0.05 for both).
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of IV amiodarone and oral propranolol is safe, effective, and superior to the combination of IV amiodarone and oral metoprolol in the management of ES in ICD patients.
Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICD; electrical storm; nonselective β-blocker; selective β-blocker

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29699616     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  13 in total

Review 1.  Electrical Storm: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications, and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Christos Kontogiannis; Konstantinos Tampakis; Georgios Georgiopoulos; Stefano Bartoletti; Christos Papageorgiou; Hector Anninos; Alkistis Kapelouzou; Michael Spartalis; Ioannis Paraskevaidis; Sofia Chatzidou
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-07-27       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Cardiac sympathetic activation circumvents high-dose beta blocker therapy in part through release of neuropeptide Y.

Authors:  Jonathan D Hoang; Siamak Salavatian; Naoko Yamaguchi; Mohammed Amer Swid; Hamon David; Marmar Vaseghi
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2020-06-04

3.  Skin sympathetic nerve activity and the temporal clustering of cardiac arrhythmias.

Authors:  Takashi Kusayama; Juyi Wan; Anisiia Doytchinova; Johnson Wong; Ryan A Kabir; Gloria Mitscher; Susan Straka; Changyu Shen; Thomas H Everett; Peng-Sheng Chen
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2019-02-21

Review 4.  Neuromodulation for Ventricular Tachycardia and Atrial Fibrillation: A Clinical Scenario-Based Review.

Authors:  Ching Zhu; Peter Hanna; Pradeep S Rajendran; Kalyanam Shivkumar
Journal:  JACC Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-08-19

Review 5.  Pharmacologic Management for Ventricular Arrhythmias: Overview of Anti-Arrhythmic Drugs.

Authors:  John Larson; Lucas Rich; Amrish Deshmukh; Erin C Judge; Jackson J Liang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 6.  Update on prevention and treatment of sudden cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Yuliya Krokhaleva; Marmar Vaseghi
Journal:  Trends Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 6.677

7.  Electrical storm: mechanistic and therapeutic considerations to avoid death in the survivors.

Authors:  Yukiomi Tsuji; Dobromir Dobrev
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.005

Review 8.  Management of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia electrical storm in structural heart disease.

Authors:  Ahmed AlKalbani; Najib AlRawahi
Journal:  J Saudi Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-05-11

Review 9.  Autonomic modulation of ventricular electrical activity: recent developments and clinical implications.

Authors:  Valerie Y H van Weperen; Marc A Vos; Olujimi A Ajijola
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 4.435

10.  Implications of aging in the treatment of complex arrhythmias.

Authors:  Sofia Chatzidou; Georgios Georgiopoulos; Christos Kontogiannis
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 5.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.