|
February 17, 2009
|
Volume 4
Issue 7
|
|
|
|
|
DynaMed Systematic Literature Surveillance
|
|
For the week ending February 13, 2009
This week, 973 articles were considered for inclusion in DynaMed and 285 met criteria for inclusion.
Based on the criteria of selecting “articles most likely to change clinical practice,” two articles of significant interest are included in this weekly update.
|
|
|
Routine Immediate Imaging Not Associated with Benefit Compared to Usual Care for Acute Low Back Pain
Although lumbar imaging for acute low back pain is generally only indicated if there is concern for serious underlying disease (e.g. infection, malignancy), many physicians continue to order imaging studies on a routine basis for patients presenting with acute low back pain. In support of previous research, a recent systematic review of 6 randomized trials evaluating immediate radiography, MRI or CT in 1,804 patients (without markers for serious underlying disease) showed no benefit for this practice in either short-term (< 3 months) or long-term (6-12 months) follow-up (level 2 [mid-level] evidence). There were no significant differences between immediate imaging and standard care in pain, function, quality of life, mental health or overall improvement (Lancet 2009 Feb 7;373(9662):463). For more information, see the Acute low back pain topic in DynaMed.
|
Dronedarone May Reduce Both Hospitalization and Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation have not been shown to be more beneficial in most patients compared to rate control. Most patients with rhythm control will have some amount of intermittent atrial fibrillation that will necessitate anticoagulation. The principal benefit is for patients who cannot tolerate the symptoms of atrial fibrillation.
A recent randomized trial compared dronedarone (400 mg twice daily) to placebo in 4,628 patients (mean age 72 years) with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation or flutter. All patients had at least 1 additional risk factor, including age ≥ 70 years, arterial hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke, TIA or systemic embolism, left atrial diameter ≥ 50 mm or left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%. At mean follow-up of 21 months, dronedarone was associated with lower rates of hospitalization for any cardiovascular event (29.3% vs. 36.9%, p < 0.001, NNT 14) or for atrial fibrillation (14.6% vs. 21.9%, p < 0.001, NNT 14) (level 2 [mid-level] evidence). Cardiovascular mortality was also lower for the dronedarone group (2.7% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.03, NNT 84), but there was not a significant difference in all-cause mortality (5% vs. 6%). About 30% of patients in each group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Dronedarone was associated with significantly more bradycardia, QT-interval prolongation, gastrointestinal events and skin-related events (N Engl J Med 2009 Feb 12;360(7):668). For more information, see the Rhythm control in atrial fibrillation topic in DynaMed.
|
|
|
|  |
 |
 |
|
Subscribe FREE to DynaMed Weekly Update
|
|
|
|
|
|
DynaMed Weekly Update is a compilation of 1 to 5 articles that are of significant interest to clinicians. Articles are selected from DynaMed's Systematic Literature Surveillance as articles most likely to change clinical practice. Updates are prepared by the DynaMed Editorial Team which includes 28 clinicians from multiple disciplines. Send comments to DynaMedEditor@epnet.com. To learn more about DynaMed, go to www.dynamicmedical.com.
Published by
Copyright © 2009 EBSCO Publishing. All rights reserved.
DynaMed® is a registered trademark of and published by DynaMed LLC. Original date of on-line publication December 15, 1995 with continuous daily updating. ISSN: 1554-1177. Subscriptions and queries can be addressed to DynaMed LLC, EBSCO Publishing, 10 Estes St., Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA 01938-0602, telephone (978) 356-6500, facsimile (978) 356-6565, e-mail Editor@DynamicMedical.com.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and editors and may or may not represent the official position of cooperating or endorsing Medical Societies.
Development of DynaMed was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through a Small Business Innovative Research grant. (All other support comes from subscriptions. No advertisements are accepted.)
|
|
|
|
| |