Summary of findings 5. Lidocaine compared with propafenone for myocardial infarction.
| Lidocaine compared with propafenone for myocardial infarction | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with myocardial infarction Settings: in‐hospital Intervention: lidocaine Comparison: propafenone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Propafenone | Lidocaine | |||||
| All‐cause mortality | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | No trial assessed this outcome |
| Cardiac mortality | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | No trial assessed this outcome |
| Overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | No trial assessed this outcome |
|
Ventricular fibrillation Follow‐up: 24 hours |
See comment | See comment | RR 3.00 (0.14 to 65.90) | 20 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | Control group had no event |
| Adverse events (AEs; adverse drug reaction): heart failure Follow‐up: 24 hours | See comment | See comment | RR 6.38 (0.32 to 127.77) | 64 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | Control group had no event |
| Adverse events (AEs; adverse drug reaction): bilateral bundle branch block Follow‐up: 24 hours | 28 per 1000 | 12 per 1000 (1 to 279) | RR 0.43 (0.02 to 10.06) | 64 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c | |
| Adverse events (AEs; adverse drug reaction): neuropsychiatric disturbances Follow‐up: 24 hours | See comment | See comment | RR 6.95 (0.86 to 55.94) | 84 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | Control group had no event |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
aDowngraded one level because of limitations in trial design and execution of the trial. bDowngraded two levels because of imprecision (small sample and very low number of events with an impact on the precision of effect estimates). cAssumed risk was gotten from control group risk (2.8%).