Multicenter comparative study of the efficacy and safety of sotalol in the prophylactic treatment of patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachyarrhythmias

Safety of outpatient commencement of sotalol

Background

Inpatient monitoring is recommended for sotalol initiation.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of outpatient sotalol commencement.

Methods

This is a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients initiated on sotalol in an outpatient setting. Serial electrocardiogram monitoring at day 3, day 7, 1 month, and subsequently as clinically indicated was performed. Corrected QT (QTc) interval and clinical events were evaluated.

Results

Between 2008 and 2023, 880 consecutive patients who were commenced on sotalol were evaluated. Indications were atrial fibrillation/flutter in 87.3% (n = 768), ventricular arrhythmias in 9.9% (n = 87), and other arrhythmias in 2.8% (n = 25). The daily dosage at initiation was 131.0 ± 53.2 mg/d. The QTc interval increased from baseline (431 ± 32 ms) to 444 ± 37 ms (day 3) and 440 ± 33 ms (day 7) after sotalol initiation (P < .001). Within the first week, QTc prolongation led to the discontinuation of sotalol in 4 and dose reduction in 1. No ventricular arrhythmia, syncope, or death was observed during the first week. Dose reduction due to asymptomatic bradycardia occurred in 3 and discontinuation due to dyspnea in 3 within the first week. Overall, 1.1% developed QTc prolongation (>500 ms/>25% from baseline); 4 within 3 days, 1 within 1 week, 4 within 60 days, and 1 after >3 years. Discontinuation of sotalol due to other adverse effects occurred in 41 patients within the first month of therapy.

Conclusion

Sotalol initiation in an outpatient setting with protocolized follow-up is safe, with no recorded sotalol-related mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, or syncope. There was a low incidence of significant QTc prolongation necessitating discontinuation within the first month of treatment. Importantly, we observed a small incidence of late QT prolongation, highlighting the need for vigilant outpatient surveillance of individuals on sotalol.

Multicenter Analysis of Dosing Protocols for Sotalol Initiation

Sotalol, a Vaughan-Williams Class III antiarrhythmic medication, is used to manage atrial arrhythmias. Due to its QT-prolonging effect and subsequent increased risk of torsade de pointes, many centers admit patients during the initial dosing period. Despite its widespread use, little information is available regarding dosing protocols during this period. In this multicenter investigation, dosing protocols in patients initiating sotalol therapy were examined to identify predictors of successful sotalol initiation. Over a 4-year period, patients admitted to 5 hospitals in the United States for inpatient telemetry monitoring during initiation for nonresearch purposes were enrolled. A 3-day course of 5 of 6 doses of sotalol was considered successful completion of the loading protocol. Of the 213 enrolled patients, over 90% were successfully discharged on sotalol. Significant bradycardia, ineffectiveness, and excessive QT prolongation were reasons for failed completion. Absence of a dose adjustment was a strong predictor of successful initiation (odds ratio: 6.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-32.7, P = .02). Hypertension, use of a calcium channel blocker, use of a separate β-blocker, and presence of a pacemaker were predictors of dose adjustments. Marginal structural models (ie, inverse probability weighting based on probability of a dose adjustment) verified that these factors also predicted successful initiation via preventing any dose adjustment and suggests that considering these factors may result in a higher likelihood of successful initiation in future investigations. In conclusion, we found that the majority of patients admitted for sotalol initiation are successfully discharged on the medication. The study findings suggest that factors predicting need for dose adjustment can be used to identify patients who could undergo outpatient initiation. Prospective studies are needed to verify this approach.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence. This is an update of a review previously published in 2006, 2012 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation in people who had recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase in January 2019, and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP in February 2019. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored, spontaneously or by any intervention. We excluded postoperative atrial fibrillation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We pooled studies, if appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up or the nearest time point.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included one new study (100 participants) and excluded one previously included study because of double publication. Finally, we included 59 RCTs comprising 20,981 participants studying quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone and sotalol. Overall, mean follow-up was 10.2 months.All-cause mortalityHigh-certainty evidence from five RCTs indicated that treatment with sotalol was associated with a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.81; participants = 1882). The number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for sotalol was 102 participants treated for one year to have one additional death. Low-certainty evidence from six RCTs suggested that risk of mortality may be higher in people taking quinidine (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.77; participants = 1646). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased RR for mortality but with very wide CIs for metoprolol (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.05, 2 RCTs, participants = 562) and amiodarone (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.99, 2 RCTs, participants = 444), compared with placebo.We found little or no difference in mortality with dofetilide (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence) or dronedarone (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence) compared to placebo/no treatment. There were few data on mortality for disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, making impossible a reliable estimation for those drugs.Withdrawals due to adverse eventsAll analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse effects compared to placebo or no treatment (quinidine: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.78; disopyramide: RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.95 to 14.24; propafenone: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.46; flecainide: RR 15.41, 95% CI 0.91 to 260.19; metoprolol: RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.15; amiodarone: RR 6.70, 95% CI 1.91 to 23.45; dofetilide: RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.18; dronedarone: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85; sotalol: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.11). Certainty of the evidence for this outcome was low for disopyramide, amiodarone, dofetilide and flecainide; moderate to high for the remaining drugs.ProarrhythmiaVirtually all studied antiarrhythmics showed increased proarrhythmic effects (counting both tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias attributable to treatment) (quinidine: RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 4.41; disopyramide: no data; flecainide: RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.30 to 17.77; metoprolol: RR 18.14, 95% CI 2.42 to 135.66; amiodarone: RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.71 to 6.96; dofetilide: RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 22.76; dronedarone: RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.98; sotalol: RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.16 to 5.83); with the exception of propafenone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.47) for which the certainty of evidence was very low and we were uncertain about the effect. Certainty of the evidence for this outcome for the other drugs was moderate to high.StrokeEleven studies reported stroke outcomes with quinidine, disopyramide, flecainide, amiodarone, dronedarone and sotalol. High-certainty evidence from two RCTs suggested that dronedarone may be associated with reduced risk of stroke (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; participants = 5872). This result is attributed to one study dominating the meta-analysis and has yet to be reproduced in other studies. There was no apparent effect on stroke rates with the other antiarrhythmics.Recurrence of atrial fibrillationModerate- to high-certainty evidence, with the exception of disopyramide which was low-certainty evidence, showed that all analysed drugs, including metoprolol, reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (quinidine: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; disopyramide: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; propafenone: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.74; flecainide: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77; metoprolol: RR 0.83 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; amiodarone: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58; dofetilide: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; dronedarone: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; sotalol: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.87). Despite this reduction, atrial fibrillation still recurred in 43% to 67% of people treated with antiarrhythmics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence of increased mortality associated with sotalol treatment, and low-certainty evidence suggesting increased mortality with quinidine, when used for maintaining sinus rhythm in people with atrial fibrillation. We found few data on mortality in people taking disopyramide, flecainide and propafenone, so it was not possible to make a reliable estimation of the mortality risk for these drugs. However, we did find moderate-certainty evidence of marked increases in proarrhythmia and adverse effects with flecainide.Overall, there is evidence showing that antiarrhythmic drugs increase adverse events, increase proarrhythmic events and some antiarrhythmics may increase mortality. Conversely, although they reduce recurrences of atrial fibrillation, there is no evidence of any benefit on other clinical outcomes, compared with placebo or no treatment.

How to Approach Difficult Cases of AVNRT

OPINION STATEMENT

Our approach to the ablation of atrioventricular nodal reciprocating tachycardia (AVNRT), the most common supraventricular tachycardia, is as follows: We first attempt ablation in the right atrial posteroseptum anterior to the coronary sinus ostium with a 4-mm non-irrigated tip catheter. If ablation within the triangle of Koch is unsuccessful with radiofrequency (RF), we switch to cryoablation and target a more superior (mid septal) region. We also utilize cryoablation if RF ablation produces transient VA block (absence of retrograde conduction during junctional rhythm) or a fast junctional rhythm (<350 msec). If cryoablation were to fail, or is not available, we would then suggest ablation within the coronary sinus targeting the roof (2-4 cm from the os) using a 3.5-mm irrigated tip catheter. If tachycardia were still inducible despite these measures, we would then proceed with transseptal puncture (given our greater experience with this over a retrograde aortic approach) and perform RF ablation along the posteroseptal left atrium and inferoseptal mitral annulus utilizing an irrigated tip catheter. In our experience, cryoablation reliably results in elimination of the slow pathway. The only left atrial ablation for AVNRT at our institution in the past year was performed because a patent foramen ovale allowed for rapid left atrial access, facilitating left atrial ablation of the slow pathway.

Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with symptomatic atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia: a randomized, controlled trial

AIMS

To conduct a randomized trial in order to guide the optimum therapy of symptomatic atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with at least one symptomatic episode of tachycardia per month and an electrophysiologic diagnosis of AVNRT were randomly assigned to catheter ablation or chronic antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy with bisoprolol (5 mg od) and/or diltiazem (120-300 mg od). All patients were properly educated to treat subsequent tachycardia episodes with autonomic manoeuvres or a 'pill in the pocket' approach. The primary endpoint of the study was hospital admission for persistent tachycardia cardioversion, during a follow-up period of 5 years. Sixty-one patients were included in the study. In the ablation group, 1 patient was lost to follow-up, and 29 were free of arrhythmia or conduction disturbances at a 5-year follow-up. In the AAD group, three patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remainder, 10 patients (35.7%) continued with initial therapy, 11 patients (39.2%) remained on diltiazem alone, and 7 patients (25%) interrupted their therapy within the first 3 months following randomization, and subsequently developed an episode requiring cardioversion. During a follow-up of 5 years, 21 patients in the AAD group required hospital admission for cardioversion. Survival free from the study endpoint was significantly higher in the ablation group compared with the AAD group (log-rank test, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation is the therapy of choice for symptomatic AVNRT. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy is ineffective and not well tolerated.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation frequently recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear. This is an update of a review previously published in 2008 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine in patients who have recovered sinus rhythm after having atrial fibrillation, the effects of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke, embolism, drug adverse effects and recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12 of 12), MEDLINE (to January 2014) and EMBASE (to January 2014). The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent authors selected randomised controlled trials comparing any antiarrhythmic drug with a control (no treatment, placebo, drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic drug in adults who had atrial fibrillation and in whom sinus rhythm was restored. Post-operative atrial fibrillation was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update three new studies, with 534 patients, were included making a total of 59 included studies comprising 21,305 patients. All included studies were randomised controlled trials. Allocation concealment was adequate in 17 trials, it was unclear in the remaining 42 trials. Risk of bias was assessed in all domains only in the trials included in this update.Compared with controls, class IA drugs quinidine and disopyramide (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.03 to 5.59, number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 109, 95% CI 34 to 4985) and sotalol (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.50, NNTH 169, 95% CI 60 to 2068) were associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other antiarrhythmics did not seem to modify mortality, but our data could be underpowered to detect mild increases in mortality for several of the drugs studied.Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.19 to 0.70, number needed to treat to beneft (NNTB) 3 to 16). Beta-blockers (metoprolol) also significantly reduced atrial fibrillation recurrences (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, NNTB 9).All analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse affects and all but amiodarone, dronedarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia. Only 11 trials reported data on stroke. None of them found any significant difference with the exception of a single trial than found less strokes in the group treated with dronedarone compared to placebo. This finding was not confirmed in others studies on dronedarone.We could not analyse heart failure and use of anticoagulation because few original studies reported on these measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several class IA, IC and III drugs, as well as class II drugs (beta-blockers), are moderately effective in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. However, they increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and some of them (disopyramide, quinidine and sotalol) may increase mortality. Possible benefits on clinically relevant outcomes (stroke, embolism, heart failure) remain to be established.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. AF recurs frequently after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in patients who recovered sinus rhythm after AF, the effect of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke and embolism, adverse effects, pro-arrhythmia, and recurrence of AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL on The Cochrane Libary (Issue 1 of 4, 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2010) and EMBASE (1966 to February 2010). The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials comparing any antiarrhythmic with a control (no treatment, placebo or drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic, in adults who had AF and in whom sinus rhythm was restored. Post-operative AF was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR). All results were calculated at one year of follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, 11 new studies met inclusion criteria, making a total of 56 included studies, comprising 20,771 patients. Compared with controls, class IA drugs quinidine and disopyramide (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.03 to 5.59, number needed to harm (NNH) 109, 95%CI 34 to 4985) and sotalol (OR 2.47, 95%CI 1.2 to 5.05, NNH 166, 95%CI 61 to 1159) were associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other antiarrhythmics did not seem to modify mortality.Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of AF (OR 0.19 to 0.70, number needed to treat (NNT) 3 to 16). Beta-blockers (metoprolol) also reduced significantly AF recurrence (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, NNT 9).All analysed drugs increased withdrawals due to adverse affects and all but amiodarone, dronedarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia. We could not analyse other outcomes because few original studies reported them.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several class IA, IC and III drugs, as well as class II (beta-blockers), are moderately effective in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. However, they increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and some of them (disopyramide, quinidine and sotalol) may increase mortality. Possible benefits on clinically relevant outcomes (stroke, embolisms, heart failure) remain to be established.

Review of contemporary antiarrhythmic drug therapy for maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disturbance seen in clinical practice, and its prevalence and incidence are rising rapidly as the population ages with its attendant complications. Management of AF involves anticoagulation, and fortunately new drugs for long-term anticoagulation are now available. Maintenance of sinus rhythm, though intuitively better than rate control strategy, has not been shown to offer mortality benefit. Still, maintenance of sinus rhythm is considered an appropriate therapeutic strategy when symptoms are not adequately controlled with rate control. Though significant advances have been made in ablation techniques for AF, pharmacological therapy is still the first line of treatment for rate control and maintenance of sinus rhythm, given ease of use, noninvasive nature, and limited experience with catheter-based ablation techniques. Class IC and III agents (Vaughan Williams classification) form the backbone for pharmacological maintenance of sinus rhythm. Dronedarone, a recently approved class III agent, provides a significant advance because of its relatively safe side effect profile. Currently drugs with selective atrial channels blocking properties, like Vernakalant, are being tested in trials and may provide an opportunity to maintain sinus rhythm with limited toxicity. Large trials are also being conducted to better define the efficacy of catheter-based ablation strategy as first-line treatment. Here, we review the current status of commonly used antiarrhythmic medications for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in AF.

Meta-analysis of ablation of atrial flutter and supraventricular tachycardia

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of typical atrial flutter (AFL) and atrioventricular node-dependent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in adult patients. Medline and EMBASE were searched (1990 to 2007) for all study design trials of RFA. Data relating to single- and multiple-procedure success, arrhythmia recurrence, repeat ablation, adverse events, and death were extracted. For RFA in AFL, 18 primary studies with 22 treatment arms and 1,323 patients were identified. Single-procedure success for AFL was 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.4% to 94.9%). Multiple-procedure success was 97.0% (95% CI 94.7% to 99.4%). Postablation arrhythmia was noted in 13.2% of patients (95% CI 7.5% to 18.9%), while repeat ablation was reported in 8% (95% CI 4.5% to 11.4%). For RFA of SVT, 39 primary studies with 49 treatment arms in 7,693 patients with accessory pathways and atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia were identified. Single-procedure success for SVT was 93.2% (95% CI 90.8% to 95.5%). Multiple-procedure success was 94.6% (95% CI 92.4% to 96.9). Postablation arrhythmia was noted in 5.6% patients (95% CI 4.1% to 7.2%). Repeat ablation occurred in 6.5% (95% CI 4.7% to 8.3%). For AFL studies, all-cause mortality was 0.6%, and adverse events were reported in 0.5% of patients. For SVT studies, all-cause mortality was 0.1%, and adverse events were reported in 2.9% of patients. In conclusion, studies of RFA for the treatment of patients with AFL and SVT report high efficacy rates and low rates of complications.

Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. After restoration of normal sinus rhythm, the recurrence rate of AF is high. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used to prevent recurrence, but the effect of these drugs on mortality and other clinical outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in patients who recovered sinus rhythm after AF, the effect of long-term treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs on death, stroke and embolism, adverse effects, pro-arrhythmia and recurrence of AF. If several antiarrhythmics were effective our secondary aim was to compare them.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Libary (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2005) and EMBASE (1966 to May 2005) were searched. The reference lists of retrieved articles, recent reviews and meta-analyses were checked. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials comparing any antiarrhythmic with a control (no treatment, placebo or drugs for rate control) or with another antiarrhythmic, in adults who had AF and in whom sinus rhythm was restored. Post-operative AF was excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data, on an intention-to-treat basis. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Studies were pooled, if appropriate, using Peto odds ratio (OR).

MAIN RESULTS

45 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 12,559 patients. All results were calculated at 1 year of follow-up. Class IA drugs (disopyramide, quinidine) were associated with increased mortality compared with controls (OR 2.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 5.59, P = 0.04, number needed to harm (NNH) 109, 95% CI 34 to 4985). Other antiarrhythmics did not modify mortality. Several class IA (disopyramide, quinidine), IC (flecainide, propafenone) and III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, sotalol) drugs significantly reduced recurrence of AF (OR 0.19 to 0.60, number needed to treat 2 to 9), but all increased withdrawals due to adverse affects (NNH 17 to 36) and all but amiodarone and propafenone increased pro-arrhythmia (NNH 17 to 119).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several class IA, IC and III drugs are effective in maintaining sinus rhythm but increase adverse events, including pro-arrhythmia, and disopyramide and quinidine are associated with increased mortality. Any benefit on clinically relevant outcomes (embolisms, heart failure, mortality) remains to be established.

Atrial fibrillation: Choosing an antiarrhythmic drug

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. The associated hemodynamic changes can lead to symptoms of palpitations, fatigue, light-headedness, or dyspnea. Extensive research in the use of antiarrhythmic drugs has been performed both to facilitate the conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and to maintain normal sinus rhythm. The relative merits of a rhythm control versus rate control strategy are briefly discussed. Efficacy of the available agents for pharmacologic cardioversion is reviewed in detail. Important drugs for maintenance of sinus rhythm include amiodarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and dofetilide. Selection of the appropriate antiarrhythmic drug must be individualized to the clinical situation, with Class IC drugs being first-line agents in the absence of structural heart disease. Regardless of agent selected, appropriate monitoring for development of adverse effects is of utmost importance.

Left Atrial and Pulmonary Vein Ostial Ablation as a New Treatment for Curing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Initial Experience and Results

BACKGROUND

Segmental pulmonary vein (PV) isolation has been performed to eliminate paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, this technique is not effective in most patients with persistent AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Left atrial catheter ablation (LACA) was performed by encircling the left- and right-sided PV 1-2 cm from the ostia, guided by an electroanatomical mapping system in 16 patients with persistent AF (>1 month). Twelve patients (75%) had a history of unsuccessful transthoracic cardioversion and prophylactic antiarrhythmic drugs. Ablation lines were also created in the mitral isthmus and posterior LA. PV isolation was also performed for each PV if there were residual PV potentials after the LACA. After LACA, 38 PV (59%) were completely isolated, and complete PV isolation was achieved with only a few radiofrequency energy applications (2.7+/-2.0 min) on a narrow area of the PV ostium (24+/-15%) in the remaining PV. The mean procedure time was 200+/-38 min. During the follow-up period (17+/-3 months), 12 patients (75%) had normal sinus rhythm and were free of symptomatic AF with (n = 10) or without antiarrhythmic drugs (n = 2). One patient had a stroke just after the procedure. No other complications including PV narrowing (>50%) occurred.

CONCLUSION

This approach was effective in persistent AF, however, concomitant use of antiarrhythmic drugs was often required.

Review of the current management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Its prevalence is increasing and accordingly, so is its burden on healthcare systems throughout the world. The pathophysiology of AF is complex and poorly understood, which of itself presents a major challenge to the management of this important condition. AF is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with underlying left ventricular dysfunction. Once AF occurs, it is often difficult to 'cure' and as such, the major focus of therapy is currently divided essentially between a rate control strategy and a need to revert to and maintain sinus rhythm. Both approaches seek to minimise the associated symptoms and complications. Over the past two decades, numerous pharmacological approaches to the management of AF have been employed, many of which have been shown to be relatively ineffective or confounded by major complications. Accordingly, recent research and interest has focused on non-pharmacological electrophysiological therapies to either cure AF or improve symptoms. This review summarises the current approaches to the management AF and provides some new insights into emerging therapies for this common clinical problem.

Long-term pharmacologic management of atrial fibrillation in the elderly

The first decision to be made in treating atrial fibrillation in the elderly is to determine whether to pursue a treatment strategy of rate control or rhythm control. Both strategies require use of anticoagulation therapy with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.5; range 2-3). If a decision is made for rhythm control, the critical therapy is almost always with an antiarrhythmic drug. Before selecting an antiarrhythmic drug for use, it is first necessary to determine the presence or absence of underlying structural heart disease, as that will affect the available options for antiarrhythmic drug use. If there is no underlying structural heart disease, any of the available antiarrhythmic drugs may be used, although a clinically reasoned approach is suggested. If there is underlying structural heart disease, not all antiarrhythmic drugs are appropriate for use. A clinically reasoned approach is suggested in the presence of coronary artery disease, left ventricular dysfunction /congestive heart failure, or hypertension based largely on the risk/benefit profile of the drugs.

Current management of symptomatic atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest arrhythmia. It presents in distinct patterns of paroxysmal, persistent and chronic AF, and patient management aims differ according to the pattern. In paroxysmal AF, drug treatment with beta-blockers, class Ic and class III agents reduce the frequency and duration of episodes. In persistent AF (recent onset, non-paroxysmal), early cardioversion with either pharmacological agents or by direct current (DC) cardioversion should be actively considered, in those patients who are suitable. Patients most likely to cardiovert and remain in sinus rhythm include those with duration of AF of <1 year, an acute reversible cause, left atrial diameter <50 mm and good left ventricular function on echocardiography. Recent data show that maintenance of sinus rhythm after successful cardioversion is enhanced by the use of class III drugs including amiodarone and dofetilide. In chronic or permanent AF, management is aimed at controlling the ventricular rate response with combinations of digoxin, beta-blockers and calcium antagonists with atrio-ventricular nodal activity (diltiazem and verapamil). There is some debate about the prognostic significance of AF. Certainly AF is associated with an excess mortality but this is largely accounted for by its association with serious intrinsic heart disease and the thrombo-embolic complications of the arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation is a common default arrhythmia for the sick heart.

A review of class III antiarrhythmic agents for atrial fibrillation: maintenance of normal sinus rhythm

A noteworthy shift from class I to class III antiarrhythmic agents for suppression of atrial fibrillation has occurred. Sotalol, amiodarone, and dofetilide have been evaluated for their ability to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. All of these agents are moderately effective; however, amiodarone appears to be most efficacious. Aside from their common class III actions, these agents have profoundly different pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, safety, and drug interaction profiles that help guide drug selection. Amiodarone and dofetilide are safe in patients who have had a myocardial infarction and those with heart failure. The safety of commercially available d,l-sotalol in these patients is poorly understood. Torsades de pointes is the most serious adverse effect of sotalol and dofetilide, and risk increases with renal dysfunction. Amiodarone has minimal proarrhythmic risk but has numerous noncardiac toxicities that require frequent monitoring. Overall, an ideal antiarrhythmic agent does not exist, and drug selection should be highly individualized.

Sotalol in treatment of pediatric cardiac arrhythmias

BACKGROUND

There is limited experience on sotalol use in the management of childhood arrhythmias. This study reviews the results of our experience with oral sotalol for treatment and prevention of tachyarrhythmias in children.

METHODS

The records of 62 patients (27 female, 35 male, mean age: 8.5+/-5.3 years) treated with sotalol for supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias from 1994 to 1999 at our institution were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, electrocardiographic (ECG), ambulatory ECG and electrophysiologic variables were collected.

RESULTS

Forty-two (63.6%) patients had re-entrant supraventricular tachycardia, eight patients (12.9%) had atrial tachycardia, one patient (1.6%) had junctional ectopic tachycardia, four patients (6.5%) had ventricular tachycardia, and seven patients (11.3%) had complex ventricular arrhythmias, as evidenced by surface or ambulatory ECG records; or revealed during the electrophysiological study. The mean sotalol dose was 3.9+/-1.2 mg/kg per day. In 15.5+/-13.9 months of sotalol use 50% (n=31) had complete relief of symptoms and/or arrhythmia and 29% (n=18) had partial relief. Sotalol was ineffective in 20% (n=13). Sotalol was more effective in re-entrant type supraventricular tachycardias (P=0.012). Sotalol was the first choice in 35.5% of patients. The sotalol therapy was initiated in inpatient settings in 40.3% (25 patients). Complications due to sotalol were seen in six patients (five patients developed bradycardia/pauses, and one patient had torsades de pointes) for which the sotalol dose was modified. In patients with sick sinus syndrome, a pacemaker was implanted and in another patient sotalol was stopped.

CONCLUSION

Sotalol, being an effective and safe drug particularly in children, is a good therapeutic alternative for the preventive treatment of childhood tachyarrhythmias.

Efficacy and safety of dofetilide in the prevention of symptomatic episodes of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia: a 6-month double-blind comparison with propafenone and placebo

BACKGROUND

Existing drug therapies for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) have potentially serious adverse effects. Dofetilide, a pure class III antiarrhythmic agent, may offer an effective and safe alternative for treating PSVT. This study compared the efficacy and safety of dofetilide with that of propafenone and placebo in the prevention of PSVT.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared the effectiveness of oral dofetilide 500 microg given twice daily with that of propafenone 150 mg given 3 times a day and placebo in preventing the recurrence of PSVT in 122 symptomatic patients. Episodes of PSVT were documented by symptom diaries and Hertcard (Hertford Medical, Hertfordshire, UK) event recorders.

RESULTS

After 6 months of treatment, patients taking dofetilide, propafenone, and placebo had a 50%, 54%, and 6% probability, respectively, of remaining free of episodes of PSVT (P <.001 for both dofetilide and propafenone vs placebo). Both dofetilide and propafenone also decreased the frequency of episodes of PSVT; the median numbers of episodes in the dofetilide- and propafenone-treated groups were 1 and 0.5, respectively, compared with 5 in the placebo-treated group. Dofetilide was well tolerated; no proarrhythmia occurred. Three patients taking propafenone had serious treatment-related adverse effects that required drug discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Dofetilide and propafenone were equally effective in preventing the recurrence of or decreasing the frequency of PSVT.

New advances in class III antiarrhythmic drug therapy

In the past 2 years, significant advances have been made in class III antiarrhythmic drug therapy. In patients with ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), antiarrhythmic agents are increasingly being used as adjunct therapy to decrease the frequency of ICD discharges. Sotalol was recently shown to be effective in reducing tachyarrhythmias in patients with ICDs. Intravenous amiodarone is being used for the acute treatment of unstable ventricular arrhythmia and is being investigated for the treatment of acute out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Class III agents are increasingly being used for prophylaxis in patients who have atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and data point to an important role for these agents in reducing supraventricular tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery. Future studies will need to directly compare these agents with pure anti-adrenergic maneuvers in postoperative patients. In addition to terminating atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, ibutilide significantly reduces human atrial defibrillation thresholds and increases the percentage of patients who can be cardioverted from atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. The US Food and Drug Administration is expected to approve dofetilide for clinical use soon, and it is currently reviewing azimilide (which seems to be devoid of frequency-dependent effects on repolarization) for prophylaxis against atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Dronedarone, tedisamal, and trecetilide are now under active study intended to determine their usefulness in patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Experimental studies are ongoing to identify pharmacologic agents that will selectively prolong repolarization in the atria without exerting electrophysiologic effects in the ventricles.

Antiarrhythmic agents for atrial fibrillation: focus on prolonging atrial repolarization

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been the subject of considerable attention and intensive clinical research in recent years. Current opinion among physicians on the management of AF favors the restoration and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm. This has several potential benefits, including the alleviation of arrhythmia-associated symptoms, hemodynamic improvements, and possibly a reduced risk of thromboembolic events. After normal sinus rhythm has been restored, antiarrhythmic therapy is necessary to reduce the frequency of AF recurrence. In the selection of an antiarrhythmic agent, both efficacy and safety should be taken into consideration. Many antiarrhythmic agents have the capacity to provoke proarrhythmia, which may result in an increase in mortality. This is of particular concern with sodium-channel blockers in the context of patients with structural heart disease. Flecainide and propafenone are well tolerated and effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients without significant cardiac disease but with AF. Recent interest has focused on the use of class III antiarrhythmic agents, such as amiodarone, sotalol, dofetilide (recently approved), ibutilide (approved for chemical conversion of AF and atrial flutter), and azimilide (still to be approved) in patients with AF and structural heart disease. To date, amiodarone and sotalol still hold the greatest interest, and although controlled clinical trials with these agents have been few, a number are in progress and some have been recently completed. These agents are effective in maintaining normal sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF and are associated with a low incidence of proarrhythmia when used appropriately. Because of the relative paucity of placebo-controlled trials of antiarrhythmic agents in patients with AF, experience until recently has tended to dictate treatment decisions. Increasingly, selection of drug therapy is being based on a careful and individualized benefit-risk evaluation by means of controlled clinical trials, an approach that is likely to dominate the overall approach to the control of atrial fibrillation in the largest numbers of cases of the arrhythmia. Pharmacologic therapy is likely to be dominated by compounds that exert their predominant effect by prolonging atrial repolarization.

Efficacy and safety of sotalol versus quinidine for the maintenance of sinus rhythm after conversion of atrial fibrillation. SOCESP Investigators. The Cardiology Society of São Paulo

To compare the efficacy and safety of sotalol and quinidine after conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) of <6 months, a prospective multicenter trial enrolled 121 patients who were randomized to receive dl-sotalol (160 to 320 mg/day, 58 patients) or quinidine sulfate (600 to 800 mg/day, 63 patients). Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of <0.40 or left atrial diameter >5.2 cm were excluded. After 6 months of follow-up, using the Kaplan-Meier method, the probabilities of success were comparable between sotalol (74%) and quinidine (68%), but recurrences occurred later with sotalol than with quinidine (69 vs 10 days, p <0.05). Four patients developed proarrhythmic events, 3 (5%) with sotalol and 1 (2%) with quinidine, which were all associated with diuretic therapy. In patients converted from recent-onset AF (< or = 72 hours), sotalol was more effective than quinidine (93% vs 64%, p = 0.01), whereas in chronic AF (> 72 hours), quinidine was more effective than sotalol (68% vs 33%, p <0.05). During recurrences, the ventricular rate was significantly reduced in patients taking sotalol (98 to 82 beats/min, p <0.05). Independent predictors of therapeutic success were recent-onset AF in the sotalol group (p <0.001) and absence of hypertension in the quinidine group (p <0.05). In conclusion, sotalol and quinidine have comparable efficacy and safety for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in the overall group. In recent-onset AF, sotalol was more effective, whereas in chronic AF, quinidine had a better result. Recurrences occurred later with sotalol when compared with quinidine. Because of proarrhythmia, these drugs should be used judiciously in patients on diuretic therapy.

Maintenance of sinus rhythm with oral d,l-sotalol therapy in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. d,l-Sotalol Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Study Group

Currently d,l-sotalol is widely used to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter, although a randomized dose-response study has not previously been conducted to guide therapy for this indication. This study summarizes findings of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy, safety, and dose-response relation of 3 fixed doses of d,l-sotalol (80, 120, and 160 mg twice daily) for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in 253 patients with atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. All patients were in sinus rhythm at randomization. Treatment (69 patients on placebo, 59 on 80 mg, 63 on 120 mg, and 62 on 160 mg given twice daily) was continued for 12 months or until documented recurrence of symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring was used to detect symptomatic recurrences. Demographic characteristics were not different in the 4 groups. Structural heart disease was present in 57% of patients. Patients with a history of heart failure were excluded. The time from randomization to symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence was significantly longer in the 2 higher d,l-sotalol dose groups than in the placebo group. The median times to recurrence were 27, 106, 229, and 175 days for the placebo, 80, 120, and 160 mg groups, respectively. There were no deaths or cases of torsade de pointes, sustained ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation reported. Thus, d,l-sotalol appeared to be both safe and effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Further, the 120-mg twice daily dose appeared to provide the most favorable benefit and/or risk.

An open label, randomised, crossover study comparing sotalol and atenolol in the treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To compare sotalol and atenolol in the treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, open label, crossover study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

47 subjects aged over 50 years were recruited from the hospital outpatient department following ECG documentation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that coincided with symptoms. Six patients withdrew and 41 completed the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to one month's treatment with sotalol 80 mg twice daily or atenolol 50 mg once daily. Treatment arms were then crossed over. Patients underwent 72 hour Holter monitoring before randomisation and repeat studies were carried out at the end of both treatment periods. Symptom assessments were completed using linear analogue scales and the Nottingham health profile.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Frequency of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation; secondary outcome measures included average and total duration of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, total ectopic count, and symptom assessments.

RESULTS

A reduction in the number and duration of episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was noted following treatment with sotalol and atenolol. There was no difference in frequency of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation during treatment with sotalol or atenolol (median difference 0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 to 1; p = 0.47). There was no difference in total duration of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (median difference 0 min; 95% CI -1 to 2; p = 0. 51) or in average duration (median difference 0 min; 95% CI 0 to 1; p = 0.31). No difference was found in total ectopic count between sotalol and atenolol (median difference -123; 95% CI -362 to 135; p = 0.14). Treatments were equally tolerated with no difference in linear analogue scores for symptoms of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (median difference -5; 95% CI -20 to 5; p = 0.26) or in all categories of the Nottingham health profile.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in terms of ECG or symptomatic control of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation between prescribing sotalol 80 mg twice daily and atenolol 50 mg once daily. There was an improvement in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from baseline following treatment with either sotalol or atenolol.

Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of digoxin in symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Digoxin is commonly prescribed in symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) but has never been evaluated in this condition.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From a multicenter registry, 43 representative patients with frequent symptomatic AF episodes were recruited into a randomized, double-blind crossover comparison of digoxin (serum concentration, 1.29+/-0.35 nmol/L) and placebo. The study end point was the occurrence of 2 AF episodes (documented by patient-activated monitors), censored at 61 days. The median time to 2 episodes was 13.5 days on placebo and 18.7 days on digoxin (P<0. 05). The relative risk (95% CI) of 2 episodes (placebo:digoxin) was 2.19 (1.07 to 4.50). A similar effect was seen on the median time to 1 episode: increased from 3.5 to 5.4 days (P<0.05), relative risk 1. 69 (0.88 to 3.24). The mean+/-SD ventricular rates during AF recordings during placebo and digoxin treatment were 138+/-32 and 125+/-35 bpm, respectively (P<0.01). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory ECG recordings did not show significant differences in the frequency or duration of AF or in ventricular rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Digoxin reduces the frequency of symptomatic AF episodes. However, the estimated effect is small and may be due to a reduction in the ventricular rate or irregularity rather than an antiarrhythmic action.

Sotalol: Current Status and Expanding Indications

BACKGROUND: The role of antiarrhythmic drug therapy continues to undergo major changes. The change is necessitated by the advent of invasive interventional procedures, such as catheter ablation of arrhythmias and the use of implantable devices for sensing and terminating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and symptomatically traublesome supraventricular arrhythmias. Many conventional and time-honored drugs, such as sodium channel blockers, have been found either to be ineffective or to have the potential to produce serious proarrhythmic reactions. Attention is therefore focused on compounds that prolong repolarization and reduce sympathetic stimulation. Two compounds, amiodarone and sotalol, have emerged as prototypes of drugs of the future. METHODS AND RESULTS: This review focuses on sotalol for controlling supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Sotalol is a major antiarrhythmic agent that combines potent class III action with nonselective beta-blocking properties. The drug's pharmacokinetics is simple. Its elimination half-life is 10-15 hours, the drug being excreted almost exclusively by the kidneys. Sotalol's pharmacokinetics allows development of optimal dosing for initiation of therapy relative to changes in creatinine clearance with further dose adjustment by monitoring the QT interval on the surface electrocardiogram. The compound exerts broad-spectrum antiarrhythmic actions in supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. It prevents inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) in approximately 30% of patients with a higher figure for the suppression of spontaneously occurring arrhythmias documented on Holter recordings. CONCLUSIONS: The major role of sotalol is in the management of VT/VF often in conjunction with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator, in which context it lowere the defibrillation threshold. Sotalol is superior to class I agents, especially in VT/VF and in survivors of cardiac arrest. Sotalol has emerged as a major antifibrillatory compound for the control of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias as the main indication. Data have indicated its potential for the maintenance of stability of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and flutter after electrical conversion and in preventing their occurrence in a variety of clinical settings.