Key result
Procainamide was fully successful in 50% of cases compared to 15% for IV amiodarone in treating refractory supraventricular arrhythmias, with similar adverse effects.
Why the study?
Does procainamide improve treatment success compared to IV amiodarone in patients with refractory supraventricular arrhythmias?
Does procainamide improve treatment success compared to IV amiodarone in patients with refractory supraventricular arrhythmias?
Absolute Event Rate: 50% vs 15%
Procainamide may be a more effective treatment option than IV amiodarone for refractory supraventricular arrhythmias, challenging the perceived superiority of amiodarone.
I n this issue of the Journal, Chang et al 1 present a thought-provoking, single-center retrospective analysis of 37 patients receiving either procainamide or IV amiodarone for refractory supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA), excluding junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET).They compare the relative efficacy of the drugs, finding procainamide to be fully successful in 50% of cases, whereas amiodarone was only successful for 15%, a statistically significant difference.Adverse effects were similar between the drugs.They conclude that procainamide may be a more effective treatment option and more importantly challenge the "perceived superiority and safety of amiodarone."
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saul et al. (2010) conducted an editorial in refractory supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA) (n=37). Procainamide vs. IV amiodarone was evaluated on full success. Procainamide was fully successful in 50% of cases compared to 15% for IV amiodarone in treating refractory supraventricular arrhythmias, with similar adverse effects.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: