Procainamide for the acute management of atrial fibrillation and flutter in the emergency department: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chemical or electrical cardioversion are utilized for acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) management in the emergency department (ED). Procainamide is a common chemical agent used in Canada; however, there are substantial practice variations. Method: Systematic search of five databases and grey literature completed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled cohort studies including adults with acute AFF comparing procainamide with other cardioversion strategies were eligible. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019142080). Results: From 3847 potential citations, 6 studies were included (four RCTs and two cohort studies). Procainamide was less effective in achieving conversion to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) at 1st attempt compared to other chemical (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.90) and electrical (RR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.92) options. Procainamide in a drug-shock approach was as effective as electrical cardioversion alone in restoring NSR (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08). The occurrence of hypotension was higher in patients receiving procainamide compared to electrical cardioversion (RR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.14 to 3.06). Deaths and strokes were not well-reported. Conclusion: Procainamide is less effective than other chemical options and electrical cardioversion strategies to restore NSR. The efficacy of procainamide in a drug-shock approach is similar to electrical alone at restoring NSR. The evidence shows that hypotension is a common procainamide adverse effect suggesting that electrical cardioversion as a first approach is preferable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".