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 , Haizhong Li , Feier Song , Chunmei Zhang , Mengling Jian , Chunyang Huang , Yingqin Zhang , Bei Hu , 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.
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。