Latest & greatest articles for Procainamide

The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on Procainamide or other clinical topics then use Trip today.

This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on Procainamide and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.

What is Trip?

Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.

Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.

As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.

For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com

Top results for Procainamide

1. Randomized comparison of intravenous procainamide vs. intravenous amiodarone for the acute treatment of tolerated wide QRS tachycardia: the PROCAMIO study (PubMed)

Randomized comparison of intravenous procainamide vs. intravenous amiodarone for the acute treatment of tolerated wide QRS tachycardia: the PROCAMIO study Intravenous procainamide and amiodarone are drugs of choice for well-tolerated ventricular tachycardia. However, the choice between them, even according to Guidelines, is unclear. We performed a multicentre randomized open-labelled study to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous procainamide and amiodarone for the acute treatment (...) of tolerated wide QRS complex (probably ventricular) tachycardia.Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous procainamide (10 mg/kg/20 min) or amiodarone (5 mg/kg/20 min). The primary endpoint was the incidence of major predefined cardiac adverse events within 40 min after infusion initiation. Of 74 patients included, 62 could be analysed. The primary endpoint occurred in 3 of 33 (9%) procainamide and 12 of 29 (41%) amiodarone patients (odd ratio, OR = 0.1; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.03-0.6

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2016 EvidenceUpdates

2. Comparison of procainamide and mexiletine in prevention of ventricular arrhythmias after acute myocardial infarction. (PubMed)

Comparison of procainamide and mexiletine in prevention of ventricular arrhythmias after acute myocardial infarction. The incidence of ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction has been compared in a controlled study of procainamide, mexiletine, and placebo. Sixty male patients who has sustained a myocardial infarction and had received lignocaine for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular ectopic beats which were R-on-T, multiform, or close-coupled took part. The efficacy of the drugs (...) was evaluated by continuous 24-hour recordings of the electrocardiogram on the 4th and 10th days after admission to the study. Procainamide was given as 500 mg. 4-hourly and mexiletine as 250 mg. 8-hourly with corresponding placebo regimens for 12 days. 77% of patients receiving placebo showed serious ventricular rhythm disorders compared with 33% receiving antiarrhythmic therapy (p smaller than 0.05). Although only 35% of patients receiving procainamide achieved accepted therapeutic plasma concentrations

1975 Lancet