Continuous Intravenous Antiarrhythmic Agents in the Intensive Care Unit : Strategies for Safe and Effective Use of Amiodarone, Lidocaine, and Procainamide

The optimal pharmacologic means to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation remains controversial. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 665 patients who were receiving anticoagulants and had persistent atrial fibrillation to receive amiodarone (267 patients), sotalol (261 patients), or placebo (137 patients) and monitored them for 1 to 4.5 years. The primary end point was the time to recurrence of atrial fibrillation beginning on day 28, determined by means of weekly transtelephonic monitoring. Spontaneous conversion occurred in 27.1 percent of the amiodarone group, 24.2 percent of the sotalol group, and 0.8 percent of the placebo group, and direct-current cardioversion failed in 27.7 percent, 26.5 percent, and 32.1 percent, respectively. The median times to a recurrence of atrial fibrillation were 487 days in the amiodarone group, 74 days in the sotalol group, and 6 days in the placebo group according to intention to treat and 809, 209, and 13 days, respectively, according to treatment received. Amiodarone was superior to sotalol (P<0.001) and to placebo (P<0.001), and sotalol was superior to placebo (P<0.001). In patients with ischemic heart disease, the median time to a recurrence of atrial fibrillation was 569 days with amiodarone therapy and 428 days with sotalol therapy (P=0.53). Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm significantly improved the quality of life and exercise capacity. There were no significant differences in major adverse events among the three groups. Amiodarone and sotalol are equally efficacious in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Amiodarone is superior for maintaining sinus rhythm, but both drugs have similar efficacy in patients with ischemic heart disease. Sustained sinus rhythm is associated with an improved quality of life and improved exercise performance. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Lidocaine has been the initial antiarrhythmic drug treatment recommended for patients with ventricular fibrillation that is resistant to conversion by defibrillator shocks. We performed a randomized trial comparing intravenous lidocaine with intravenous amiodarone as an adjunct to defibrillation in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients were enrolled if they had out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation resistant to three shocks, intravenous epinephrine, and a further shock; or if they had recurrent ventricular fibrillation after initially successful defibrillation. They were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive intravenous amiodarone plus lidocaine placebo or intravenous lidocaine plus amiodarone placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who survived to be admitted to the hospital. In total, 347 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 67+/-14 years) were enrolled. The mean interval between the time at which paramedics were dispatched to the scene of the cardiac arrest and the time of their arrival was 7+/-3 minutes, and the mean interval from dispatch to drug administration was 25+/-8 minutes. After treatment with amiodarone, 22.8 percent of 180 patients survived to hospital admission, as compared with 12.0 percent of 167 patients treated with lidocaine (P=0.009; odds ratio, 2.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.21 to 3.83). Among patients for whom the time from dispatch to the administration of the drug was equal to or less than the median time (24 minutes), 27.7 percent of those given amiodarone and 15.3 percent of those given lidocaine survived to hospital admission (P=0.05). As compared with lidocaine, amiodarone leads to substantially higher rates of survival to hospital admission in patients with shock-resistant out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation.