Intravenous beta-blockers versus amiodarone on in-hospital mortality and safety profile in adult septic patients

Guoge Huang , Haizhong Li , Feier Song , Chunmei Zhang , Mengling Jian , Chunyang Huang , Yingqin Zhang , Bei Hu , Wenqiang Jiang
{"title":"Intravenous beta-blockers versus amiodarone on in-hospital mortality and safety profile in adult septic patients","authors":"Guoge Huang ,&nbsp;Haizhong Li ,&nbsp;Feier Song ,&nbsp;Chunmei Zhang ,&nbsp;Mengling Jian ,&nbsp;Chunyang Huang ,&nbsp;Yingqin Zhang ,&nbsp;Bei Hu ,&nbsp;Wenqiang Jiang","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>In the present study, we aimed to compare in-hospital mortality and safety of intravenous beta-blockers and amiodarone in septic patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF). The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in in-hospital mortality and safety of Beta-blocker (BBs) and amiodarone in treating NOAF in patients with sepsis.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective analysis based on the MIMIC-IV database. Septic patients with NOAF were screened.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Patients admitted to adult mixed ICU for septic patients with NOAF.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>A total of 34,789 patients were screened of whom 1394 patients were included for the analysis: 286 in the amiodarone group and 1108 in the BBs group.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>None.</div></div><div><h3>Main variables of interest</h3><div>Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days and duration of atrial fibrillation in patients receiving either amiodarone or intravenous BBs. Propensity score matching was applied to determine any association.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After Propensity Score (PS) matching, a total of 244 patients were included in both the BB and amiodarone groups. In this cohort, BBs was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70 (95% CI 0,54–0,91; P = 0.008)]. On the other hand, patients who received amiodarone had a shorter duration of atrial fibrillation (54.17 h vs 72.81 h; <em>P</em> = 0.003). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the BB group and the amiodarone group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In septic patients with NOAF, patients receiving BBs had lower in-hospital mortality than those who received amiodarone. On the other hand, amiodarone group had a shorter duration of atrial fibrillation. There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the BB group and the amiodarone group.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":"49 7","pages":"Article 502143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173572725000086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

In the present study, we aimed to compare in-hospital mortality and safety of intravenous beta-blockers and amiodarone in septic patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF). The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in in-hospital mortality and safety of Beta-blocker (BBs) and amiodarone in treating NOAF in patients with sepsis.

Design

We conducted a retrospective analysis based on the MIMIC-IV database. Septic patients with NOAF were screened.

Setting

Patients admitted to adult mixed ICU for septic patients with NOAF.

Patients

A total of 34,789 patients were screened of whom 1394 patients were included for the analysis: 286 in the amiodarone group and 1108 in the BBs group.

Interventions

None.

Main variables of interest

Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days and duration of atrial fibrillation in patients receiving either amiodarone or intravenous BBs. Propensity score matching was applied to determine any association.

Results

After Propensity Score (PS) matching, a total of 244 patients were included in both the BB and amiodarone groups. In this cohort, BBs was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70 (95% CI 0,54–0,91; P = 0.008)]. On the other hand, patients who received amiodarone had a shorter duration of atrial fibrillation (54.17 h vs 72.81 h; P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the BB group and the amiodarone group.

Conclusion

In septic patients with NOAF, patients receiving BBs had lower in-hospital mortality than those who received amiodarone. On the other hand, amiodarone group had a shorter duration of atrial fibrillation. There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the BB group and the amiodarone group.
静脉注射受体阻滞剂与胺碘酮对成人脓毒症患者住院死亡率和安全性的影响
目的:在本研究中,我们旨在比较静脉注射β受体阻滞剂和胺碘酮在脓毒症合并新发心房颤动(NOAF)患者中的住院死亡率和安全性。原假设:β受体阻滞剂(BBs)与胺碘酮治疗脓毒症患者NOAF的住院死亡率和安全性无显著差异。设计:我们基于MIMIC-IV数据库进行回顾性分析。对脓毒性NOAF患者进行筛查。背景:脓毒性NOAF患者入住成人混合ICU。患者:共筛选34,789例患者,其中1394例纳入分析:286例胺碘酮组,1108例BBs组。干预措施:没有。主要感兴趣的变量:采用Cox比例风险模型检查接受胺碘酮或静脉注射BBs的患者的住院死亡率、无呼吸机天数和房颤持续时间。使用倾向评分匹配来确定任何关联。结果:经倾向评分(PS)匹配后,共有244例患者被纳入BB组和胺碘酮组。在这个队列中,BBs与较低的住院死亡率显著相关[校正危险比(HR)为0.70](95% CI 0,54-0,91; = 0.008页)]。另一方面,接受胺碘酮治疗的患者房颤持续时间较短(54.17 h vs 72.81 h; = 0.003页)。BB组与胺碘酮组无呼吸机天数差异无统计学意义。结论:在脓毒症NOAF患者中,服用BBs的患者的住院死亡率低于服用胺碘酮的患者。胺碘酮组房颤持续时间较短。BB组与胺碘酮组无呼吸机天数差异无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信