Aims
Benzodiazepines have been used as safe anxiolytic drugs for decades and some authors have suggested they could be an alternative for morphine for treating acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We compared the efficacy and safety of midazolam and morphine in patients with ACPE.
Methods and results
A randomized, multicentre, open‐label, blinded endpoint clinical trial was performed in seven Spanish emergency departments (EDs). Patients >18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnoea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at ED arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine. Efficacy was assessed by in‐hospital all‐cause mortality (primary endpoint). Safety was assessed through serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, and the composite endpoint included 30‐day mortality and SAE. Analyses were made on an intention‐to‐treat basis. The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis by the safety monitoring committee. At that time, 111 patients had been randomized: 55 to midazolam and 56 to morphine. There were no significant differences in the primary endpoint (in‐hospital mortality for midazolam vs. morphine 12.7% vs. 17.9%; risk ratio[RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29–1.74; p = 0.60). SAE were less common with midazolam versus morphine (18.2% vs. 42.9%; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22–0.80; p = 0.007), as were the composite endpoint (23.6% vs. 44.6%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.92; p = 0.03).
Conclusion
Although the number of patients was too small to draw final conclusions and there were no significant differences in mortality between midazolam and morphine, a significantly higher rate of SAEs was found in the morphine group.
RESUMEN Existen numerosos trabajos sobre diferentes injertos para la reconstrucción del ligamento cruzado anterior. Sin embargo, no hay un acuerdo sobre cuál es el injerto ideal. En el presente artículo revisaremos lo publicado sobre las ventajas y desventajas de cada tipo de injerto, así como sus resultados comparativos. Después de nuestra revisión, no hemos encontrado un consenso sobre qué injerto elegir. Se debe decidir en función de las características del paciente, sus expectativas de recuperación y la vuelta a la actividad deportiva. La mayor controversia existe en pacientes jóvenes y con alto nivel de actividad deportiva.
for the MIMO (MIdazolam versus MOrphine) Trial InvestigatorsBackground and importance The MIMO clinical trial showed that patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in heart failure and affects patient's outcome.Objective The primary endpoint of this substudy is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. The first secondary endpoint is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events or death at 30 days in the midazolam arm. The second secondary objective of this substudy is to analyze whether AF modified the reduced risk of midazolam against morphine on the total number of serious adverse events per patient.
DesignWe conducted a secondary analysis of the MIMO trial. Patients more than 18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at emergency department arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine.
Outcome measures and analysisIn this post hoc analysis, we calculated the relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events in patients with and without AF. Calculating the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel interaction test, we evaluated if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine.
Main resultsOne hundred eleven patients (median = 78.9 years; IQR, 72.3-83.7; women, 52.2%) were randomized in the MIMO trial, 55 to receive midazolam and 56 to morphine. All randomized patients received the assigned drug and there were no losses to follow-up. Forty-four patients (39.6%) had AF. In the AF group, the RR for the incidence of serious adverse events in the midazolam versus morphine arm was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.14-1.3). In the group without AF, the RR was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.21-1). The presence of AF did not modify the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared with morphine (P for interaction = 0.88).
ConclusionThis post hoc analysis of the MIMO trial suggests that the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam group compared to morphine is similar in patients with and without AF.
Aims
To evaluate the association between chronic treatment with betablockers (BB) and the severity of decompensation and short-term outcomes of patients with acute heart failure (AHF).
Methods and results
We consecutively included all patients presenting with AHF to 45 Spanish emergency departments (ED) during six different time-periods between 2007 and 2018. Patients were stratified according to whether they were on chronic treatment with BB at the time of ED consultation. Those receiving BB were compared (adjusted odds ratio—OR—with 95% confidence interval—CI—) with those not receiving BB group in terms of in-hospital and 7-day all-cause mortality, need for hospitalization, and prolonged length of stay (≥7 days). Among the 17 923 recruited patients (median age: 80 years; 56% women), 7795 (43%) were on chronic treatment with BB. Based on the MEESSI-AHF risk score, those on BB were at lower risk. In-hospital mortality was observed in 1310 patients (7.4%), 7-day mortality in 765 (4.3%), need for hospitalization in 13 428 (75.0%), and prolonged length of stay (43.3%). After adjustment for confounding, those on chronic BB were at lower risk for in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79–0.92, P < 0.001); 7-day all-cause mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.70–0.85, P < 0.001); need for hospitalization (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.85–0.94, P < 0.001); prolonged length of stay (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.86–0.94, P < 0.001). A propensity matching approach yielded consistent findings.
Conclusion
In patients presenting to ED with AHF, those on BB had better short-term outcomes than those not receiving BB.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.