ß-Blockers for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In many studies, beta-blockers have been shown to decrease sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure patients; other studies reported mixed results. Recently, several large randomized control trials of beta blockers have been carried out. It became necessary to conduct a systematic review to provide an up-to-date synthesis of available data. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials examining the use of beta-blockers vs. placebo/control for the prevention of SCD in heart failure patients. We identified 30 trials, which randomized 24,779 patients to beta-blocker or placebo/control. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled trials and provide information on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients. Additional inclusion criteria included: treatment for >30 days and follow-up≥3 months. Studies of patients<18 years, randomization to beta-blocker vs. an angiotensin converting enzyme (without placebo) and/or beta-blocker in both arms were excluded from the analysis. Pre-specified outcomes of interest included SCD, cardiovascular death (CVD), and all-cause mortality and were analyzed according to intention-to-treat. RESULTS: We found that beta-blockers are effective in the prevention of SCD [OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77, P<0.00001], cardiovascular death (CVD) [OR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79, P<0.00001], and all-cause mortality [OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76, P<0.00001]. Based on the study analysis, 43 patients must be treated with a beta-blocker to prevent one SCD, 26 patients to prevent one CVD and 21 patients to prevent all-cause mortality in one year. CONCLUSION: Beta-blockers reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) by 31%, cardiovascular death (CVD) by 29% and all-cause mortality by 33%. These results confirm the mortality benefits of these drugs and they should be recommended to all patients similar to those included in the trials.

Early Rescue from Acute Severe Clostridium Difficile: A Novel Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Severe Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) can lead to significant impediments to effective treatment. We developed a novel treatment protocol utilizing bedside gastrointestinal lavage (GIL) for the management of patients with severe, complicated CDI. We describe the development and early outcomes of non-operative bedside GIL in hospitalized patients with severe, complicated CDI following the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long Term Study (IDEAL) framework at the Idea stage. We compared our results with those of a cohort of patients managed with colectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with severe, complicated CDI who failed conventional medical therapy and were referred for surgical consultation at two academic tertiary-care hospitals between January 2009 and January 2015. After surgical assessment, the attending surgeon decided to proceed either with bedside GIL or directly to colectomy. Bedside GIL involved nasojejunal tube insertion followed by flushing with 8 L of polyethylene glycol 3350/electrolyte solution over 48 h. Both patient groups received standard medical treatment with vancomycin 500 mg q 6 h enterally and metronidazole 500 mg intravenously three times daily for 14 d. The main outcomes of interest were the incidence of colectomy, complications, and mortality rate. RESULTS: Nineteen and seventeen patients underwent GIL and direct colectomy, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, disease severity, need for intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, serum lactate concentration, or proportion presenting with hypotension, acute kidney injury, or a white blood cell count >16,000/mcL or <4,000/mcL (p > 0.1). The in-hospital mortality rate was 26% (5/19) and 41% (7/17) for the GIL and colectomy groups, respectively (p = 0.35). Only one patient in the GIL group failed the protocol, requiring colectomy. There were no significant differences in complications in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside GIL appeared to be safe for the treatment of patients with severe, complicated CDI who had failed conventional medical therapy. It did not appear to increase the risk of morbidity or death compared with the traditional strategy of proceeding directly to colectomy.

Impact of Aldosterone Antagonists on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in Heart Failure and Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a severe burden of modern medicine. Aldosterone antagonist is publicized as effective in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or post myocardial infarction (MI). Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of AAs on mortality including SCD, hospitalization admission and several common adverse effects. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and clinicaltrial.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assigning AAs in patients with HF or post MI through May 2015. The comparator included standard medication or placebo, or both. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Event rates were compared using a random effects model. Prospective RCTs of AAs with durations of at least 8 weeks were selected if they included at least one of the following outcomes: SCD, all-cause/cardiovascular mortality, all-cause/cardiovascular hospitalization and common side effects (hyperkalemia, renal function degradation and gynecomastia). RESULTS: Data from 19,333 patients enrolled in 25 trials were included. In patients with HF, this treatment significantly reduced the risk of SCD by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03); all-cause mortality by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88, p<0.00001) and cardiovascular death by 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89, p<0.00001). In patients with post-MI, the matching reduced risks were 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03), 15% (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95, p = 0.003) and 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94, p = 0.003), respectively. Concerning both subgroups, the relative risks respectively decreased by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; p = 0.002) for SCD, 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88, p < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality and 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.0001) for cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with AAs. As well, hospitalizations were significantly reduced, while common adverse effects were significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Aldosterone antagonists appear to be effective in reducing SCD and other mortality events, compared with placebo or standard medication in patients with HF and/or after a MI.