Comparisons of oral propafenone and sotalol as an initial treatment in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Tedisamil: a new novel antiarrhythmic

Solvay Pharmaceuticals is currently developing tedisamil (KC-8857), a novel antiarrhythmic with additional anti-ischaemic properties, which acts via potassium channel blockade. This drug can be categorised as a class III antiarrhythmic agent due to its effects of action potential and QT interval prolongation in these patients. This agent was initially developed for its anti-ischaemic properties and Phase I trials have shown tedisamil to be an effective bradycardic agent, as well as causing a reverse rate-dependent QT interval prolongation. Subsequent Phase II results have confirmed that in patients with ischaemic heart disease, tedisamil had beneficial haemodynamic and anti-ischaemic effects. Phase III studies in patients with ischaemic heart disease indicated that tedisamil is an effective agent for the treatment of angina, resulting in a dose-dependent increase in anginal threshold (with a decrease in anginal attacks, increased exercise capacity during treadmill exercise and decreased electrocardiographic signs of exercise induced ischaemia) in comparison to placebo. Although tedisamil has been shown to be an effective anti-ischaemic agent, with Phase III trials for angina pectoris now completed, the company are now pursuing the use of tedisamil for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, for which tedisamil is still in Phase II/III clinical trials. Launch data are not yet known.

Sotalol versus propafenone for long-term maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation

This prospective, randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of sotalol and propafenone when used for long-term prevention of atrial fibrillation. For the long-term maintenance of normal sinus rhythm, propafenone seems to be more effective than sotalol.

Ibutilide added to propafenone for the conversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ibutilide when added to propafenone in treating both paroxysmal and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL).

BACKGROUND

The effects of ibutilide in patients with paroxysmal or chronic AF/AFL who were pre-treated with propafenone have not been previously evaluated.

METHODS

Oral propafenone was initially given in 202 patients with AF/AFL without left ventricular dysfunction. Intravenous ibutilide was administered in 104 patients in whom propafenone failed to convert the arrhythmia. Two different propafenone dosage regimens were used according to the duration of the presenting arrhythmia: patients with paroxysmal arrhythmia (n = 48) received 600 mg loading dose, and patients with chronic arrhythmia (n = 56) were receiving 150 mg three times a day as stable-dose pre-treatment.

RESULTS

Ibutilide offered an overall conversion efficacy of 66.3% (69 of 104 patients), 70.8% for patients with paroxysmal AF/AFL and 62.5% for patients with chronic AF/AFL. Ibutilide significantly decreased the heart rate (HR) and further prolonged the QTc interval (p < 0.0001). The degree of HR reduction after ibutilide administration emerged as the sole predictor of successful arrhythmia termination (p < 0.001). After ibutilide, one patient (1%) developed two asymptomatic episodes of non-sustained torsade de pointes, and 10 patients (9.6%) manifested transient bradyarrhythmic events; however, all bradyarrhythmic effects were predictable, occurring mostly at the time of arrhythmia termination. None of 82 patients who decided to continue propafenone after successful cardioversion had immediate arrhythmia recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our graded approach using propafenone and ibutilide appears to be a relatively safe and effective alternative for the treatment of paroxysmal and chronic AF/AFL to both rapidly restore sinus rhythm in nonresponders to monotherapy with propafenone and prevent immediate recurrences of the arrhythmia.

Impact of informed consent requirements on cardiac arrest research in the United States: exception from consent or from research?

INTRODUCTION

Research in patients with life-threatening illness such as cardiac arrest is challenging since they can not consent. The Food and Drug Administration addressed research under emergency conditions by publishing new criteria for exception from informed consent in 1996. We systematically reviewed randomized trials over a 10-year period to assess the impact of these regulations.

METHODS

Case-control study of published trials for cardiac arrest (cases) and atrial fibrillation (controls.) Studies were identified by using structured searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1992 to 2002. Included were studies using random allocation in humans with cardiac arrest or atrial fibrillation prior to enrollment. Excluded were duplicate publications. Number of American trials, foreign trials and proportion of trials of American origin were compared by using regression analysis. Changes in cardiac arrest versus atrial fibrillation trials were calculated as risk differences.

RESULTS

Of 4982 identified cardiac arrest studies, 57 (1.1%) were randomized trials. The number of American cardiac arrest trials decreased by 15% (95% CI: 8, 22%) annually (P = 0.05). The proportion of cardiac arrest trials of American origin decreased by 16% (95% CI: 10, 22%) annually (P = 0.006). Of 5596 identified atrial fibrillation studies, 197 trials (3.5%) were randomized trials. The risk difference between cardiac arrest versus atrial fibrillation trials being of American origin decreased significantly (annual difference -5.8% (95% CI: -10, -0.1%), P = 0.03).

INTERPRETATION

Fewer American cardiac arrest trials were published during the last decade, when federal consent requirements changed. Regulatory requirements for clinical trials may inhibit improvements in care and threaten public health.

Early recurrence of arrhythmia in patients taking amiodarone or class 1C agents for treatment of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

Amiodarone use for the prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter requires drug loading over a period of several days to weeks, whereas class 1C agents do not. Three hundred thirty-nine patients were evaluated during drug loading with amiodarone or class 1C agents, and it was found that recurrent arrhythmia was common, usually not persistent, and frequently asymptomatic. Recurrent arrhythmia was not more common with amiodarone.

Nonchannel drug targets in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common clinical arrhythmia and one of the most important factors for ischemic stroke. In general, AF is treated with "channel-blocking drugs" to restore sinus rhythm and warfarin is recommended in the majority of patients to prevent atrial thrombus formation and thromboembolic events. In the recent years, a tremendous amount has been learned about the pathophysiology and molecular biology of AF. Thus, pharmacologic interference with specific signal transduction pathways with "non-channel-blocking drugs" appears promising as a novel antiarrhythmic approach to maintain sinus rhythm and to prevent atrial clot formation. Therefore, this review will highlight some novel "nonchannel drug targets" for AF therapy.

Emergency management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia managed by emergency and acute general physicians. There is increasing evidence that selected patients with acute atrial fibrillation can be safely managed in the emergency department without the need for hospital admission. Meanwhile, there is significant variation in the current emergency management of acute atrial fibrillation. This review discusses evidence based emergency management of atrial fibrillation. The principles of emergency management of acute atrial fibrillation and the subset of patients who may not need hospital admission are reviewed. Finally, the need for evidence based guidelines before emergency department based clinical pathways for the management of acute atrial fibrillation becomes routine clinical practice is highlighted.

New approaches to atrial fibrillation management: a critical review of a rapidly evolving field

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, the prevalence of which is increasing with the aging of the population. Because of its clinical importance and the lack of highly satisfactory management approaches, AF is the subject of active clinical and research efforts. This paper reviews recent and on-going developments in pharmacological and non-drug management of AF. The ideal therapeutic goal for AF is the production and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Comparative studies suggest that available class I and III drugs have comparable and modest efficacy for sinus rhythm maintenance. Amiodarone, with actions of all antiarrhythmic classes, has recently been shown to have clearly superior efficacy compared with other available drugs. Newer agents are in development, but their advantages are as yet unclear and appear limited. A potentially interesting approach is the prescription of drugs upon the occurrence of an attack, rather than on a continuous basis. Recent insights into AF mechanisms may permit therapy to prevent development of the AF substrate. An alternative to sinus rhythm maintenance is a rate control approach, with no attempt to prevent AF. Drugs to effect rate control include digitalis, beta-blockers and calcium channel antagonists. Digitalis has limited value for control of exercise heart rate and for paroxysmal AF, but is particularly well suited for patients with concomitant AF and congestive heart failure. AV-nodal ablation and pacing is an effective alternative for rate control but leaves the patient pacemaker dependent. The relative merits of rate versus rhythm control are being evaluated in ongoing trials, preliminary results of which indicate no statistically significant differences in primary endpoints but highlight the risks of rhythm control therapy. In patients requiring pacemakers, physiological pacing (dual chamber devices or atrial pacing) has an advantage over purely ventricular pacemakers in AF prevention. Newer pacing modalities that produce more synchronised atrial activation, as well as pacemakers that prevent excessive atrial rate swings, show promise in AF prevention and may soon see wider use. The usefulness of automatic atrial defibrillators is presently limited by discomfort during shocks. Targeted destruction of pulmonary vein foci by radiofrequency catheter ablation suppresses paroxysmal AF. Efficacy in persistent AF is lower and still under study. Problems include potential recurrence in other veins and a small but nontrivial risk of pulmonary vein stenosis. Surgical division of the atria into zones with limited electrical connection, the MAZE procedure, is highly effective in AF prevention but is a major intervention that is not applicable to most patients. In conclusion, significant advances are being made in the management of patients with AF but much more work remains to be done.

Old and new antiarrhythmic drugs for converting and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation: comparative efficacy and results of trials

In managing atrial fibrillation (AF), the main therapeutic strategies include rate control, termination of the arrhythmia, and the prevention of recurrences and thromboembolic events. Safety and efficacy considerations are important in optimizing the choice of an antiarrhythmic drug for the treatment of AF. Recently approved antiarrhythmics, such as dofetilide, and promising investigational drugs, such as azimilide and dronedarone, may change the treatment landscape for AF. For medical conversion of recent-onset AF, class IC antiarrhythmic drugs, administered as an oral bolus, have been demonstrated to be the most efficacious pharmacologic conversion agents. Intravenous ibutilide and oral dofetilide both have efficacies superior to placebo in controlled trials for converting persistent AF. Comparative trials in paroxysmal AF have demonstrated that flecainide, propafenone, quinidine, and sotalol are equally effective in preventing recurrences of AF. Amiodarone has been demonstrated to be more efficacious than propafenone or sotalol in the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation. In persistent AF, twice-daily dofetilide has been shown to be as or more effective than low-dose sotalol given twice daily for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with AF. Trials have demonstrated that subjective adverse effects are less frequent with class IC drugs, sotalol, and dofetilide compared with such drugs as quinidine. In patients without structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone, and D,L-sotalol are the initial drugs of choice, given their reasonable efficacy, low incidence of subjective side effects, and lack of significant end-organ toxicity. Treating AF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction can be difficult because of associated electrophysiologic derangements, potential proarrhythmic concerns, and negative inotropic effects of antiarrhythmics. Some data exist suggesting that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers can prevent AF either by preventing atrial dilation and stretch-induced arrhythmias or by blocking the renin-angiotensin system. In post-myocardial infarction patients, D,L-sotalol, dofetilide, and amiodarone-and in congestive heart failure patients, amiodarone and dofetilide-have demonstrated neutral effects on survival in controlled trials. In the Congestive Heart Failure Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy (CHF-STAT), amiodarone lowered the frequency of AF development and improved left ventricular ejection fraction over time. In CHF-STAT, there was lower mortality in patients who converted from AF to sinus rhythm. Dofetilide decreased rehospitalization for congestive heart failure in the Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality on Dofetilide (DIAMOND) trials. Neutral effects on survival and favorable hemodynamics have positioned amiodarone and dofetilide as the antiarrhythmics of choice in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. In post-myocardial infarction patients, sotalol is an additional agent to consider for treatment of AF in this setting.

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety of propafenone and sotalol for the maintenance of sinus rhythm after conversion of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation

This study was performed to evaluate, using a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol, the long-term efficacy and safety of propafenone and sotalol in maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). The maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with recurrent AF has several potential benefits, the most important being a reduced risk of thromboembolic events. Three hundred patients with recurrent AF (> or = 4 episodes in the last year) and AF at enrollment lasting < 48 hours were randomized to receive either propafenone (mean daily dose 13 +/- 1.5 mg/kg; 102 patients), sotalol (mean daily dose 3 +/- 0.4 mg/kg; 106 patients), or placebo (92 patients). After 1-year follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm were comparable between propafenone (63%) and sotalol (73%) and superior to placebo (35%; p = 0.001 vs both drugs). Symptomatic recurrences occurred later with propafenone and sotalol than with placebo. Nine patients (9%) in the propafenone group, 11 (10%) in the sotalol group, and 3 (3%) in the placebo group discontinued therapy due to adverse effects. Malignant nonfatal arrhythmias due to proarrhythmic effects were documented with sotalol only, and occurred < 72 hours from the beginning of therapy in 4 patients (4%). During recurrences, the ventricular rate was significantly reduced in patients taking propafenone and sotalol (p = 0.001 for both drugs vs placebo). The likelihood of remaining in sinus rhythm during follow-up was higher in younger patients with smaller left atrial size and without concomitant heart disease. In patients with recurrent symptomatic AF, propafenone and sotalol are not significantly different from each other and are superior to placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm at 1 year. Recurrences occur later and tend to be less symptomatic with propafenone and sotalol compared with placebo.

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.

Must antidysrhythmic agents be given to all patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation?

We investigated the spontaneous conversion rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in emergency department patients and the recurrence rate of AF during a 1 month follow-up period. Sixty-six consecutive hemodynamically stable patients presenting to a university hospital emergency department with new-onset atrial fibrillation (less than 72 hours duration) comprised the study population. Patients were initially monitored for 8 hours and observed for spontaneous conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. If conversion did not occur in the first 8 hours, an oral loading dose (600 mg) of propafenone was given, and patients were observed for an additional 8 hours. All patients were reevaluated at 24 hours and at 1 month. The spontaneous conversion rate in patients presenting within 6 hours of AF onset during the initial 8-hour observation period was 71%. The spontaneous conversion rate for all patients during the initial observation period was 53%. The conversion rates between patients presenting "early" (less than 6 hours) and "late" (7-72 hours) were significantly different (P < 0.001). Many patients with new-onset AF, especially those with atrial fibrillation duration less than 6 hours, may need observation only, rather than immediate intervention, to treat their dysrhythmia.

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.

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.

Propafenone for the treatment of supraventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine propafenone's effectiveness in terminating and suppressing supraventricular arrhythmias using meta-analytic techniques. Published abstracts and manuscripts with these goals were selected and data abstracted on conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Data were pooled using standard meta-analytic techniques and analyzed according to observation times, trial design (randomized versus nonrandomized), and route of drug administration. Propafenone successfully terminated 83.8% (95% confidence interval 78.1-89.7%) of supraventricular tachycardias. For supraventricular tachycardias, the proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm without recurrent arrhythmia was 64.6% (58.1-71.1%) at 1 year. The likelihood of converting a paroxysm of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased over time, with 76.1% (72.8-79.4%) of patients in sinus rhythm 24 hours after initiation of therapy. Patients receiving intravenous therapy were more likely to convert to sinus rhythm in the first 4 hours after drug administration. The treatment benefit of propafenone versus placebo in converting sinus rhythm was greatest in the first 8 hours after treatment (treatment benefit of 31.5% [24.5-38.5%] at 4 hours and 32.9% [24.3-41.5%] at 8 hours, p <0.01). This treatment benefit decreased to 1 1.0% (-0.6-22.4%) after 24 hours. Propafenone was effective in suppressing recurrences of AF in 55.4% (51.3-59.7%) at 6 months and 56.8% (52.3-61.3%) at 12 months. Thus, propafenone is effective in terminating supraventricular tachycardias and AF in the vast majority of patients. Suppression of arrhythmia recurrences is feasible in most patients, although its effectiveness decreases over time.

Effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on variability of ventricular rate and exercise performance in chronic atrial fibrillation complicated with ventricular arrhythmias

For conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and management of ventricular arrhythmias, antiarrhythmic drugs were frequently used. However, the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on exercise performance and on the variability of ventricular rate were not available. This study included 37 patients who had chronic atrial fibrillation complicated with symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. The patients were divided into three groups and received sotalol, propafenone, and procainamide, respectively. Before and after taking the drugs for 14 days, these patients received treadmill exercise test, 24 h Holter electrocardiogram, and tilt table test for evaluation of the exercise performance and the variability of ventricular rate (including the mean RR intervals, mRR, the standard deviation of RR intervals, SDRR, and the root mean square of the difference in successive RR intervals, rMSSD). All these antiarrhythmic drugs could suppress ventricular arrhythmia but only sotalol could significantly increase the exercise duration (374+/-50 to 476+/-55 s, P=0.02), and reduce the maximal heart rate (186+/-23 to 136+/-16 beats/min, P=0.01) during exercise test. Furthermore, only sotalol increased the mRR (777+/-60 to 885+/-66 ms, P=0.02), SDRR (190+/-40 to 216+/-48 ms, P=0.04) and rMSSD (223+/-48 to 253+/-40 ms, P=0.03) during 24 h Holter electrocardiogram. With head-up tilt, the mRR, SDRR and rMSSD all decreased significantly before drug therapy, and these changes were still present only after propafenone therapy. Therefore, comparisons among sotalol, propafenone and procainamide showed that sotalol increased the exercise performance and the variability of ventricular rate in patients who had chronic atrial fibrillation complicated with symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias.

Likelihood of spontaneous conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the likelihood and predictors of spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (symptoms <72 h).

BACKGROUND

Although spontaneous conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation is common, the likelihood and clinical and echocardiographic predictors have not been fully defined. Such data would be important for management of patients in whom early cardioversion is desired: Cardioversion could be delayed in patients with a high likelihood of spontaneous conversion, and it could be expeditiously pursued if spontaneous conversion is unlikely.

METHODS

We screened 1,822 consecutive adults admitted to the hospital with atrial fibrillation and prospectively identified 356 patients (45% male, mean age +/- SD 68 +/- 16 years) with atrial fibrillation of <72-h duration. The occurrence of spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm and clinical and echocardiographic data were identified through retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

Spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 68% of the study group (n = 242; 95% confidence interval [CI] 63% to 73%). Among patients with spontaneous conversion, the total duration of atrial fibrillation was <24 h in 159 (66%), 24 to 48 h in 42 (17%) and >48 h in 41 (17%) (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis of clinical data identified presentation <24 h from onset of symptoms as the only predictor of spontaneous conversion (odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.4, p < 0.0001). Normal left ventricular systolic function was more common among patients with spontaneous conversion (p = 0.03), but it was not an independent predictor of conversion. Left atrial dimension was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm occurs in almost 70% of patients presenting with atrial fibrillation of <72-h duration. Presentation with symptoms of <24-h duration is the best predictor of spontaneous conversion.

Atrial fibrillation: antiarrhythmic therapy versus rate control with antithrombotic therapy

Atrial fibrillation is a major health problem in the United States, but the best strategies for treating it have not been rigorously determined in clinical studies. Specifically, there is a paucity of data comparing the approach of maintaining sinus rhythm using prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy with the approach of controlling the ventricular response to atrial fibrillation while reducing embolic events with concomitant antithrombotic therapy. Until ongoing randomized trials are completed, which patients benefit most from a specific approach cannot be determined with certainty. In general, the most reasonable strategies include (1) the restoration of sinus rhythm (without prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy) after the patient's first episode of atrial fibrillation; and (2) the maintenance of sinus rhythm (including the use of prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy) in patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate rate control, and who are not at high risk for proarrhythmia and/or are unlikely to maintain sinus rhythm. The risks and benefits need to be carefully weighed in patients with truly asymptomatic atrial fibrillation. Many patients may require multiple attempts to maintain sinus rhythm. Current investigative treatment modalities (e.g., ablation techniques, atrial implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, new antiarrhythmic agents) are likely to alter the current approaches to atrial fibrillation.