Martin Balík

I see clinical research as an integral part of my life and believe it serves as a valuable safeguard against burnout, which can affect physicians constantly exposed to the daily challenges and emotional toll of bedside care, often associated with significant mortality.

Martin Balík, MD, PhD, is the Head of Intensive Care of the General University Hospital in Prague, and Associate Professor at the 1stMedical Faculty of Charles University in Prague, Czechia.

Dr. Martin Balík is the Head of Intensive Care at the General University Hospital in Prague and an Associate Professor at the 1st Medical Faculty of Charles University. He serves as Chair of the Czech Society of Intensive Care (CSIM) and is an honorary member of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). He has played a key role in medical education, leading the EDEC, contributing to EDIC Committee and to several international medical societies.

Specializing in anesthesiology and intensive care, Dr. Balík has trained in the UK, Austria, and Australia. His research focuses on cardiology, nephrology, ultrasound and ECMO in critically ill patients, with over 2,900 citations and a high-impact H-index.

His recent research, Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomized controlled trial, is part of a broader project with so far 13 publications, a cumulative impact factor of 105, and over 250 citations. His work provides critical insights into the management of arrhythmias in septic shock, contributing to evidence-based treatment strategies in intensive care.
 

Refining antiarrhythmic therapy in septic shock

The study “Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomized controlled trial” investigates the effectiveness of propafenone compared to amiodarone in managing acute supraventricular arrhythmias in patients with septic shock. While amiodarone is commonly used due to its lower cardio depressant effects, this blinded randomized trial tested whether propafenone could offer a faster and more efficient rhythm control strategy.

The findings confirmed that propafenone restored normal rhythm more quickly, though there was a significant difference in sinus rhythm rates at 24 hours only in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. Interestingly, those patients also demonstrated a one-year mortality benefit when cardioverted in propafenone compared to amiodarone. Propafenone was associated with fewer arrhythmia recurrences and showed promising results in patients with right ventricular dysfunction, whereas amiodarone was more effective in those with a dilated left atrium. Both drugs demonstrated excellent hemodynamic safety profiles.

This research contributes valuable insights into antiarrhythmic therapy, emphasizing the role of echocardiography and the potential for refining arrhythmia treatment strategies. It also highlights the rationalization of amiodarone use and the decision-making process between rhythm and rate control strategies. Additionally, the study validated a unique primary indication for arginine vasopressin administration in septic shock patients. Published in a highly ranked journal, this work provides clinically relevant data that can guide intensivists in optimizing treatment approaches for critically ill patients.

Dr. Balík’s journey in intensive care medicine

Dr. Martin Balík views clinical research as an integral part of his life, considering it a vital safeguard against burnout for physicians who face the daily challenges of intensive care, where patient outcomes are often uncertain. Initially drawn to cardiology, he ultimately chose intensive care medicine, a young and evolving field that he finds both experimental and rich with research opportunities. His passion for discovery is fueled not only by his medical work but also by his family and non-medical interests, particularly sports and history.

With an early fascination for chemistry and history, he once aspired to become a restorer. However, influenced by his parents and the ideological constraints of studying humanities in the 1980s, he turned to medicine instead. Today, he sees his work in intensive care as a kind of restoration – though unlike historical artifacts, his patients require immediate intervention, leaving only a brief window of opportunity to make a difference.