Midazolam versus morphine in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients with and without atrial fibrillation: findings from the MIMO trial

Background and importance The MIMO clinical trial showed that patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in heart failure and affects patient’s outcome. Objective The primary endpoint of this substudy is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. The first secondary endpoint is to know if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events or death at 30 days in the midazolam arm. The second secondary objective of this substudy is to analyze whether AF modified the reduced risk of midazolam against morphine on the total number of serious adverse events per patient. Design We conducted a secondary analysis of the MIMO trial. Patients more than 18 years old clinically diagnosed with ACPE and with dyspnea and anxiety were randomized (1:1) at emergency department arrival to receive either intravenous midazolam or morphine. Outcome measures and analysis In this post hoc analysis, we calculated the relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events in patients with and without AF. Calculating the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel interaction test, we evaluated if AF modified the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared to morphine. Main results One hundred eleven patients (median = 78.9 years; IQR, 72.3–83.7; women, 52.2%) were randomized in the MIMO trial, 55 to receive midazolam and 56 to morphine. All randomized patients received the assigned drug and there were no losses to follow-up. Forty-four patients (39.6%) had AF. In the AF group, the RR for the incidence of serious adverse events in the midazolam versus morphine arm was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.14–1.3). In the group without AF, the RR was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.21–1). The presence of AF did not modify the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam arm compared with morphine (P for interaction = 0.88). Conclusion This post hoc analysis of the MIMO trial suggests that the reduced risk of serious adverse events in the midazolam group compared to morphine is similar in patients with and without AF.

[1]  Ò. Miró,et al.  Midazolam versus morphine in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: results of a multicentre, open‐label, randomized controlled trial , 2022, European journal of heart failure.

[2]  Ò. Miró,et al.  Current Spanish emergency department organization and clinical practicesin caring for patients with acute heart failure. , 2022, Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias.

[3]  S. Price,et al.  Ten questions ICU specialists should address when managing cardiogenic acute pulmonary oedema , 2022, Intensive Care Medicine.

[4]  J. McMurray,et al.  2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure , 2022, European journal of heart failure.

[5]  P. Davlouros,et al.  Heart failure and atrial fibrillation: new concepts in pathophysiology, management, and future directions , 2021, Heart Failure Reviews.

[6]  A. Camm,et al.  Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure: GARFIELD‐AF , 2021, ESC heart failure.

[7]  Y. Ahn,et al.  Impact of successful restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute heart failure: Results from the Korean Acute Heart Failure registry , 2020, Cardiology Journal.

[8]  Héctor Martínez Alonso,et al.  The role of atrial fibrillation in the short-term outcomes of patients with acute heart failure , 2018, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[9]  Ò. Miró,et al.  [Precipitating factors in acute heart failure: a review]. , 2017, Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias.

[10]  P. Ponikowski,et al.  Effect of Ularitide on Cardiovascular Mortality in Acute Heart Failure , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Ò. Miró,et al.  Study Design and Rationale of “A Multicenter, Open-Labeled, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing MIdazolam Versus MOrphine in Acute Pulmonary Edema”: MIMO Trial , 2017, Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy.

[12]  J. McMurray,et al.  Assessment and prevalence of pulmonary oedema in contemporary acute heart failure trials: a systematic review , 2015, European journal of heart failure.

[13]  Héctor Martínez Alonso,et al.  [Characteristics and clinical course of patients with acute heart failure and the therapeutic measures applied in Spanish emergency departments: based on the EAHFE registry (Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments)]. , 2015, Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias.

[14]  R. Califf,et al.  Assessment of dyspnea in acute decompensated heart failure: insights from ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) on the contributions of peak expiratory flow. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  M. Mamas,et al.  A meta‐analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure , 2009, European journal of heart failure.

[16]  W. Peacock,et al.  Morphine and outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure: an ADHERE analysis , 2008, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[17]  W. Haverkamp,et al.  Pathophysiological and therapeutic implications in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure , 2017, Heart Failure Reviews.