Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31481571›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study.

Martin Balik, Petr Waldauf, Michal Maly, Vojtech Matousek, Tomas Brozek, Jan Rulisek, Michal Porizka, Robert Sachl, Michal Otahal, Petr Brestovansky and 7 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03029169 (Prospective Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of 1c Class Antiarrhythmic Agent), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03029169 phase4completednot on this map

Prospective Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of 1c Class Antiarrhythmic Agent (Propafenone) in Septic Shock

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharles University, Czech RepublicRan2017 to 2022Enrolled210ConditionsSupraventricular Arrhythmia, Septic ShockArmsPropafenone i.v., Amiodarone i.v.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin BalikAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU martin.balik@vfn.cz.ORCID 0000-0003-1864-2143
Petr WaldaufAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Michal MalyAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Vojtech MatousekAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Tomas BrozekAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Jan RulisekAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Michal PorizkaAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Robert SachlAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Michal OtahalAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Petr BrestovanskyAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Eva SvobodovaAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Marek FlaksaAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Zdenek StachAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Jaroslav PazoutAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Frantisek DuskaAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Ondrej Smid2nd Department of Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General Univeristy Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Martin StriteskyAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, EU.
Charles University · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSupraventricular 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.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmiodaroneAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropafenoneProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShock, SepticAmiodaroneAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsPropafenoneamiodaroneintensive carepropafenoneseptic shocksupraventricular arrhythmia

Identifiers

PMID31481571
PMCPMC6731952
OpenAlexW2971703169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.