Summary of findings 7. Lidocaine compared with dimethylammonium for myocardial infarction.
| Lidocaine compared with dimethylammonium for myocardial infarction | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with myocardial infarction Settings: in‐hospital Intervention: lidocaine Comparison: dimethylammonium | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Dimethylammonium | Lidocaine | |||||
| All‐cause mortality Follow‐up: unclear | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | Bergdahl 1978 did not assess this outcome |
| Cardiac mortality Follow‐up: unclear | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | Bergdahl 1978 did not assess this outcome |
| Overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | Bergdahl 1978 did not assess this outcome |
| Ventricular fibrillation Follow‐up: unclear | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | See comment | Bergdahl 1978 did not assess this outcome |
| Hypotension Follow‐up: unclear | 312 per 1000 | 266 per 1000 (88 to 809) | RR 0.85 (0.28 to 2.59) | 31 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c | |
| Tachycardia Follow‐up: unclear | 500 per 1000 | 30 per 1000 (0 to 500) | RR 0.06 (0.00 to 1.0) | 31 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,d | |
| Bradycardia Follow‐up: unclear | 62 per 1000 | 22 per 1000 (1 to 505) | RR 0.35 (0.02 to 8.08) | 31 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,e | |
| *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 or execution (high attrition bias). 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 (31.3%). dAssumed risk was gotten from control group risk (50%). eAssumed risk was gotten from control group risk (6.3%).