Key result
QX-572 controlled arrhythmias in 75% of patients compared to 40% with increased lidocaine (not significant), but caused significantly more frequent and severe side effects (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does QX-572 improve arrhythmia control compared to an increased dose of lidocaine in patients with acute myocardial infarction and refractory ventricular arrhythmias?
Population
31 patients with suspected or proven acute myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular arrhythmias not…
Comparison
600 mg N,N-bis dimethylammonium chloride as an… vs Increased dose of lidocaine
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May increase adverse events without superior control versus lidocaine escalation; leaves open any role in refractory post-MI arrhythmias.
Does QX-572 improve arrhythmia control compared to an increased dose of lidocaine in patients with acute myocardial infarction and refractory ventricular arrhythmias?
Absolute Event Rate: 75% vs 40%
p-value: p=not significant
Despite its antiarrhythmic effect, QX-572 causes severe side effects, making an increased dose of lidocaine the safer and preferred option for refractory ventricular arrhythmias in acute myocardial infarction.
Bergdahl et al. (1978) studied Acute myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular arrhythmias (n=31). QX-572 (N,N-bis dimethylammonium chloride) vs. Increased dose of lidocaine (bolus 50 mg followed by infusion 3 mg/min) was evaluated on Control of arrhythmias (p=not significant). QX-572 controlled arrhythmias in 75% of patients compared to 40% with increased lidocaine (not significant), but caused significantly more frequent and severe side effects (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: