Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42181642›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026

Propafenone is associated with fewer recurrences of supraventricular arrhythmias in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock and right ventricular dysfunction.

M Balik, T Tencer, E Svobodova, M Otahal, I Jurisinova, V Kaspar, A Krajcova, F Duska, P Waldauf

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

M Balik *Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
T Tencer *Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague Czechia.
E SvobodovaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
M OtahalDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
I JurisinovaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
V KasparDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
A KrajcovaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
F DuskaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
P WaldaufDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Kralovske Vinohrady University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA) are common in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock and may be aggravated by right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Optimal rhythm-control strategies in this setting remain uncertain. We explored whether propafenone differs from amiodarone in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with RV dysfunction. Methods: This exploratory sub-analysis of the randomized double-blind PRASE trial included patients with septic shock who developed new-onset SVA, had preserved to moderately reduced left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction >35%), and received continuous norepinephrine at doses <1.0 µg/kg/min. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of RV dysfunction using comprehensive echocardiographic criteria. Outcomes included cardioversion at 24 h, arrhythmia recurrence, multiple recurrences, and 12-month survival. Results: Among 162 patients with sufficient echocardiographic data, 73 (45%) met criteria for RV dysfunction. Of these, 42 received propafenone and 31 amiodarone; 89 patients without RV dysfunction served as controls. Cardioversion at 24 h did not differ significantly between propafenone and amiodarone in patients with RV dysfunction (69% vs. 56.7%, Conclusions: In mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock and RV dysfunction, propafenone was associated with fewer arrhythmia recurrences compared with amiodarone, despite similar short-term cardioversion rates. These findings are hypothesis-generating and suggest that propafenone may represent a promising alternative to amiodarone for rhythm control in critically ill patients with right ventricular dysfunction, warranting further prospective evaluation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029169.

Indexed as

amiodaroneatrial fibrillationechocardiographypropafenoneright ventricular dysfunctionseptic shocksupraventricular arrhythmias

Identifiers

PMID42181642
PMCPMC13191741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.