Why the study?
What are the efficacy and adverse effects of parenteral antiarrhythmics in the acute management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias?
What are the efficacy and adverse effects of parenteral antiarrhythmics in the acute management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias?
This review highlights the challenges in clinical decision-making and drug selection for parenteral antiarrhythmics due to wide variations in reported adverse effects and study designs.
Heterogeneity in adverse rates cautions against direct IV antiarrhythmic comparisons; leaves open standardized prospective trials for acute ventricular tachyarrhythmias.
The acute management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias often includes the use of parenteral antiarrhythmics. There are a number of agents currently available for this purpose. They are used to suppress inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during programmed electrical stimulation, they terminate spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia, and prevent ventricular fibrillation in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction. Serious adverse reactions include proarrhythmia, hypotension, severe bradyarrhythmias, and precipitation of congestive heart failure. A comparative evaluation of intravenous antiarrhythmics is difficult due to inherent differences in the choice of agents for study, protocol design, patient population, defined endpoint, and serum drug levels. Likewise, the reported adverse reaction rates vary from 0.4% to 75%. To understand the difficulties in clinical decision-making in this problem area, particularly drug selection, we present here a review of pertinent clinical trials evaluating parenteral drug efficacy and adverse effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filart et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: