Key result
This protocol describes a planned randomized trial of 200 patients to evaluate whether propafenone is superior to amiodarone for achieving rhythm control at 24 hours in septic shock.
Why the study?
Supraventricular arrhythmias worsen haemodynamics in septic shock, and retrospective data suggested propafenone might be more effective than amiodarone for restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm.
Does propafenone improve rhythm control at 24 hours in septic shock patients with new-onset supraventricular arrhythmia compared to amiodarone?
RCT (n=200)
double-blind
randomised
Does propafenone improve rhythm control at 24 hours in septic shock patients with new-onset supraventricular arrhythmia compared to amiodarone?
This protocol outlines a randomized trial to determine if propafenone is superior to amiodarone for achieving rhythm control in patients with septic shock and new-onset supraventricular arrhythmias.
Prospective RCT tests propafenone versus amiodarone for 24-h sinus rhythm in septic shock; leaves open optimal antiarrhythmic choice and outcome impact.
INTRODUCTION: Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a successful cardioversion and help in the decision on rhythm or rate control strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial includes septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia, but without severe impairment of the left ventricular ejection fraction. After baseline echocardiography, the patient is randomised to receive a bolus and maintenance dose of either amiodarone or propafenone. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcomes are the percentages of patients that needed rescue treatments (DC cardioversion or unblinding and crossover of the antiarrhythmics), the recurrence of arrhythmias, intensive care unit mortality, 28-day and 1-year mortality. In the posthoc analysis, we separately assess subgroups of patients with pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In the exploratory part of the study, we assess whether the presence of a transmitral diastolic A wave and its higher velocity-time integral is predictive for the sustainability of mechanical SR and whether the indexed left atrial endsystolic volume is predictive of recurrent arrhythmia. Considering that the restoration of SR within 24 hours occurred in 74% of the amiodarone-treated patients and in 89% of the patients treated with propafenone, we plan to include 200 patients to have an 80% chance to demonstrate the superiority of propafenone at p=0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is recruiting patients according to its second protocol version approved by the University Hospital Ethical Board on the 6 October 2017 (No. 1691/16S-IV). The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03029169.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balík et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in septic shock with new-onset supraventricular arrhythmia (n=200). propafenone vs. amiodarone was evaluated on proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. This protocol describes a planned randomized trial of 200 patients to evaluate whether propafenone is superior to amiodarone for achieving rhythm control at 24 hours in septic shock.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: