Low-dose amiodarone versus sotalol for suppression of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation

Outcome of tailored therapy in rheumatic heart disease with persistent atrial fibrillation (RHD-AF)

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatic heart disease with persistent atrial fibrillation (RHD-AF) is associated with increased morbidity. However, there is no standardized approach for the maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) in them. We aimed to determine the utility of a stepwise approach to achieve SR in RHD-AF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with RHD-AF from July 2021 to August 2023 formed the study cohort. The stepwise approach included pharmacological rhythm control and/or electrical cardioversion (Central illustration). In patients with recurrence, additional options included AF ablation or pace and ablate strategy with conduction system pacing or biventricular pacing. Clinical improvement, NT-proBNP, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, and thromboembolic complications were documented during follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients with RHD-AF (mean age 56.13 ± 9.51 years, women 72.28%) were included. Utilizing this approach, 43 (51.81%) achieved and maintained SR during the study period of 11.04 ± 7.14 months. These patients had improved functional class, lower NT-proBNP, better distance covered for 6MWT, and reduced HF hospitalizations. The duration of AF was shorter in patients who achieved SR, compared to those who remained in AF (3.15 ± 1.29 vs 6.93 ± 5.23, p = 0.041). Thirty-five percent (29) maintained SR after a single cardioversion over the study period. Only one underwent AF ablation. Of the 24 who underwent pace and ablate strategy, atrial lead was implanted in 22 (hybrid approach), and 50% of these achieved and maintained SR. Among these 24, none had HF hospitalizations, but patients who maintained SR had further improvement in clinical and functional parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

RHD-AF patients who could achieve SR with a stepwise approach, had better clinical outcomes and lower HF hospitalizations.

Ethnic-Related Sodium Voltage-Gated Channel α Subunit 5 Polymorphisms Shape the In Vitro Pharmacological Action of Amiodarone upon Nav1.5

Nav1.5-derived Na+ current (INa) exerts a pivotal role in the depolarization phase of cardiomyocytes' action potential, and, therefore, changes in INa can contribute to fatal arrhythmias. Nav1.5 displays naturally occurring ethnicity-related polymorphisms, which might alter the functioning and pharmacology of the channel. Some studies have shown how single-nucleotide polymorphism can change the response to antiarrhythmic drugs. Investigations on the role of Nav1.5 in arrhythmogenesis associated with its functional polymorphisms are currently growing as well as the possible variability in the antiarrhythmic pharmacotherapy among ethnic groups. The influence of the ethnicity-related polymorphisms (S524Y, S1103Y, R1193Q, V1951L) on the responsiveness, selectivity, and pharmacological efficacy of the clinically used antiarrhythmic amiodarone (AMIO) is not completely known. Our objectives were to analyze biophysical and pharmacological aspects of four ethnicity-related polymorphisms before and after exposure to AMIO. Polymorphisms caused reduced AMIO potency compared with wild type (WT), which can vary by up to 4× between them. AMIO shifted the voltage dependency for current inactivation without significant effect in voltage-dependent activation to a similar extent in WT and polymorphisms. The recovery from inactivation was altered between the polymorphisms when compared with WT. Finally, the use dependency of AMIO differed between studied groups, especially at a more depolarized cell membrane. Thus, our work may guide future studies focusing on the efficiency of AMIO in treating different arrhythmias and establish more individualized guidelines for its use depending on the Nav1.5 polymorphism after validating our findings using in vivo studies. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Sodium voltage-gated channel α subunit 5 (SCN5A) gene encodes the α subunit of Nav1.5, the main cardiac voltage-gated Na+ channel. Interestingly, ethnicity-related polymorphisms are found in SCN5A. Amiodarone is used in clinical practice, and some of its effects are attributed to interaction with Nav1.5. Important, amiodarone efficacy is variable among patients. Here we show that ethnicity-related SCN5A polymorphisms lead to altered Nav1.5-amiodarone interaction, which may be the cause for the variable efficacy observed in clinical usage of amiodarone.

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.

Does Sotalol Still Have a Role in the Management of Arrhythmias?

Despite proven effectiveness in treating tachyarrhythmias, sotalol is proarrhythmic and can cause torsades de pointes. Given the emergence of studies that show no benefit from rhythm control strategies in managing atrial fibrillation, as well as the introduction of nonpharmacological approaches to treating arrhythmias, we felt it necessary to ascertain if there was any role for sotalol given its side effects. Review of the literature regarding sotalol use in the prevention and treatment of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias seems to show that more effective and safer agents and nonpharmacological alternatives are currently available. However, sotalol still seems to be useful in preventing supraventricular tachyarrhythmias postcardiac surgery and in reverting hemodynamically stable sustained ventricular tachycardias in the setting of coronary artery disease. Its role in the prevention of tachyarrhythmias in the setting of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy requires further investigation.

Control of Heart Rate Versus Rhythm in Rheumatic Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Study

Background: Patients with rheumatic heart disease with atrial fibrillation incur significant morbidity and mortality. Which approach, ventricular rate control or maintenance of sinus rhythm, in this setting might be superior is not known. The role of amiodarone in this patient population for maintaining sinus rhythm has not been evaluated.

Methods and Results: We prospectively studied 144 patients with chronic rheumatic atrial fibrillation in a double-blind protocol in which rhythm control (group I), comprising 48 patients each with amiodarone (group Ia) and placebo (group Ib), were compared with each other and with patients in a ventricular rate control group (group II) in which the effects by diltiazem were determined (n = 48, open-label). Direct current cardioversion was attempted in group I. The mean age of the study population was 38.6 ± 10.3 years, left atrial size, 4.7 ±0.6 cm; atrial fibrillation duration, 6.1 ± 5.4 years; and 72.9% had valvular interventions performed. At 1 year, 45 patients with sinus rhythm in group I compared with 48 in group II demonstrated an increase in exercise time (2.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.6 ± 2.5 min, P = .001), improvement in New York Heart Association class of 1 or more ( P = .002), and improvement in the quality-of-life score of one or greater ( P = 0.01) with no difference in hospitalizations, systemic bleeds, or thromboembolism. Five patients died in group II; none died in group I ( P =.02). In group I, 73 of 87 (83.9%) patients converted to sinus rhythm and 45 of 86 (52.3%) patients maintained the rhythm at 1 year. Conversion rates were 38 of 43 (88.4%) with amiodarone versus 34 of 44 (77.3%) with placebo ( P = .49); the corresponding rate for maintaining sinus rhythm was 29 of 42 (69.1%) versus 16 of 44 (36.4%) ( P = .008). A larger number of electrical cardioversions were required in the placebo group (2.1 vs. 1.4, P = .011).

Conclusions: Maintenance of sinus rhythm is superior to ventricular rate control in patients with rheumatic atrial fibrillation with respect to effects on exercise capacity, quality of life, morbidity, and possibly mortality. Sinus rhythm could be restored in most patients, and amiodarone was superior to placebo in the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm.

Atrial fibrillation management: evaluating rate vs rhythm control

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasing global issue leading to increased hospitalizations, adverse health related events and mortality. This review focuses on the management of atrial fibrillation, in particular in the past decade, comparing two major strategies, rate or rhythm control. We evaluate the evidence for each strategy, pharmacological options and the increasing utilization of invasive techniques, in particular catheter ablation and use of implantable cardiac pacing devices. Pharmacological comparative trials evaluating both strategies have shown rate control being non-inferior to rhythm control for clinical outcomes of mortality and other cardiovascular events (including stroke). Catheter ablation techniques, involving radiofrequency ablation and recently cryoablation, have shown promising results in particular with paroxysmal AF. However, persistent AF provides ongoing challenges and will be a particular focus of continued research.

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.

Catheter ablation vs. amiodarone plus losartan for prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Although amiodarone plus angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and catheter ablation may improve sinus rhythm maintenance of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), their clinical efficacies have not been compared. This prospective cohort study was designed to compare clinical efficacy of catheter ablation and amiodarone plus losartan on sinus rhythm maintenance in patients with paroxysmal AF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 240 patients with paroxysmal AF were assigned to four groups. CPVA group (n = 60) was treated with circumferential pulmonary vein ablation (CPVA), SPVI group (n = 60) with segmental pulmonary vein isolation, AMIO group (n = 60) with amiodarone and AMIO + LO group (n = 60) with amiodarone plus losartan. The endpoint was documented recurrence of AF > 30 s by Holter or conventional 12-lead ECG in the 1-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

During 12 months of follow-up, the primary end point was reached in 28 patients in CPVA group, 14 patients in SPVI group, 25 patients in AMIO group and 13 patients in AMIO + LO group, respectively. The sinus rhythm in SPVI and AMIO + LO group were significant higher than that in CPVA and AMIO group (P < 0.01 and 0.025), and no difference between CPVA and AMIO group. The maintenance rate of sinus rhythm in SPVI group was similar to that in AMIO + LO group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that segmental pulmonary vein isolation in preventing AF recurrence is similar to amiodarone plus losartan, but it is superior to CPVA and amiodarone alone in patients with paroxysmal AF. Larger multicentre studies are needed to confirm its long-term outcomes.

Benefits and risks of long-term amiodarone therapy for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve sinus rhythm, is safe and effective compared with a placebo or rate control drug in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) of more than 30 days' duration.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing amiodarone with a placebo or rate control drug were identified through the EMBASE (January 1, 1988, to October 18, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1, 1966, to October 18, 2008), and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (second issue 2008) databases with no language restrictions.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials that involved a total of 5060 patients with persistent AF were considered. Amiodarone was more effective than a placebo or rate control drug in achieving sinus rhythm (21.3 vs 9.2 per 100 patient-years in sinus rhythm; relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.5), and its use was not associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (4.7 vs 3.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.8-1.1; P=.51; I2=0%). Cessation of amiodarone therapy because of intolerable adverse effects was more common compared with a placebo or rate control drug (10.7 vs 1.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2; P<.001; I2=70%), but amiodarone was not associated with an increased incidence of hospitalizations (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.1; P=.77; I2=90%).

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve and maintain sinus rhythm, appears to be safe and effective in patients with persistent AF. However, some patients may not tolerate the adverse effects of this agent.

Benefits and risks of long-term amiodarone therapy for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve sinus rhythm, is safe and effective compared with a placebo or rate control drug in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) of more than 30 days' duration.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing amiodarone with a placebo or rate control drug were identified through the EMBASE (January 1, 1988, to October 18, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1, 1966, to October 18, 2008), and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (second issue 2008) databases with no language restrictions.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials that involved a total of 5060 patients with persistent AF were considered. Amiodarone was more effective than a placebo or rate control drug in achieving sinus rhythm (21.3 vs 9.2 per 100 patient-years in sinus rhythm; relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.5), and its use was not associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (4.7 vs 3.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.8-1.1; P=.51; I2=0%). Cessation of amiodarone therapy because of intolerable adverse effects was more common compared with a placebo or rate control drug (10.7 vs 1.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2; P<.001; I2=70%), but amiodarone was not associated with an increased incidence of hospitalizations (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.1; P=.77; I2=90%).

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve and maintain sinus rhythm, appears to be safe and effective in patients with persistent AF. However, some patients may not tolerate the adverse effects of this agent.

A randomized comparison of amiodarone and class IC antiarrhythmic drugs to treat atrial fibrillation in patients paced for sinus node disease: the Prevention Investigation and Treatment: A Group for Observation and Research on Atrial arrhythmias (PITAGORA) trial

BACKGROUND

Rhythm control is an important goal in the treatment of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT). The PITAGORA study was a randomized trial in patients paced for sinus node disease (SND), designed to test the noninferiority of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to amiodarone in terms of a primary end point composed of death, permanent AT, cardiovascular hospitalization, atrial cardioversion, or AAD change.

METHODS

Randomization was stratified to assign 2 patients to amiodarone and 2 patients to class IC AADs: propafenone or flecainide. One hundred seventy-six patients (46% men, 72 +/- 8 years) were enrolled. Device diagnostics continuously monitored AT recurrences and duration.

RESULTS

In a mean follow-up of 20 +/- 9 months, the primary end point occurred in 23 (30.7%) of 75 class IC patients and in 28 (40.0%) of 70 amiodarone patients. The absolute difference in the end point incidence (-9.3%; 95% CI between 3.7% and -22.3%) confirmed the noninferiority of class IC to amiodarone (P = .007). Kaplan-Meier 1-year freedom from AT episodes >10 minutes, 1 day, and 7 days was 40%, 73%, and 91% for amiodarone and 28%, 78%, and 86% for class IC AADs (P = nonsignificant).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients paced for SND and suffering from AT, class IC AADs proved not to be inferior to amiodarone in terms of the primary composite end point described or end points which were differently composed of mortality, efficacy, or AAD side effects. The AADs studied also showed similar results in terms of symptoms, quality of life, and freedom from AT recurrences.

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.

Dose-dependent effects of oral dronedarone on the circadian variation of RR and QT intervals in healthy subjects: implications for antiarrhythmic actions

Dronedarone, a non-iodinated benzofuran derivative, was developed as a potentially less toxic alternative to amiodarone. This study describes Holter data of dronedarone in humans. Five groups of healthy subjects were given 1 of 5 oral doses of dronedarone in a twice-daily regimen or placebo. Holter recordings of circadian rhythmicity of RR and QT intervals were evaluated. Dronedarone prolonged RR and QT intervals as a function of dose, without effect on circadian patterns. The relative prolongation of QT, QTc, and RR by dronedarone was significant. The QTc interval did not exhibit a clearly recognizable circadian pattern, suggesting that the circadian pattern of the QT interval was mostly a reflection of circadian changes in the RR interval in the study population. Dronedarone resembled amiodarone in class III and sympatholytic effects, indicating its potential as a unique antiarrhythmic compound seemingly devoid of the side effects mediated by iodine in amiodarone.

Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Cardiovascular Disease

The cardiovascular continuum describes the progression of pathophysiologic events from cardiovascular risk factors to symptomatic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and life-threatening events. Pharmacologic intervention early in the continuum may prevent or slow CVD development and improve quality of life. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is central to the pathophysiology of CVD at many stages of the continuum. Numerous clinical trials of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown that RAAS blockade provides benefits to patients across the continuum. ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension; however tolerability and adherence to therapy appear to be improved with ARBs. Large clinical trials have shown that ARBs may provide therapeutic benefits beyond blood pressure control in patients with diabetes, heart failure or at risk of heart failure following a myocardial infarction. In addition, ARBs have been shown to provide protective effects in patients with impaired renal function or left ventricular hypertrophy. Additional clinical trials are ongoing to further characterize the role of ARBs in CVD management.

Rationale and design of the GISSI-Atrial Fibrillation Trial: a randomized, prospective, multicentre study on the use of valsartan, an angiotensin II AT1-receptor blocker, in the prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence

BACKGROUND

The possibility of preventing atrial fibrillation recurrence with anti-arrhythmic agents is very limited, given the discouraging results obtained with current drugs in many patients. Data from experimental studies suggest that angiotensin II AT1-receptor blockers can influence atrial remodelling, a key factor in atrial fibrillation initiation and maintenance. Moreover, some preliminary clinical data show that angiotensin II AT1 -receptor blockers can prevent atrial fibrillation episodes. The GISSI-Atrial Fibrillation (AF) trial is a randomized, prospective, parallel group, placebo-controlled, multicentre study designed to test whether angiotensin II AT1-receptor blockers can reduce atrial fibrillation recurrence.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate that, in patients with a history of recent atrial fibrillation who are treated with the best recommended therapies, the addition of the angiotensin II AT1-receptor blocker valsartan (titrated up to 320 mg) is superior to placebo in reducing atrial fibrillation recurrence. A substudy will analyse the effect of valsartan on left atrial dimensions and on neurohormones. The study population consists of patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (at least two electrocardiogram documented atrial fibrillation episodes in the previous 6 months or successful cardioversion in the last 2 weeks) with underlying cardiovascular diseases or comorbidities. With approximately 100 centres participating in Italy, a total of 1402 patients are randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive valsartan or placebo. The enrolment period will last 12 months and the patients will be followed for 12 months from study entry.

CONCLUSIONS

The GISSI-AF is the largest trial aimed at assessing the role of angiotensin receptor blockade in reducing the recurrence of atrial fibrillation and its possible mechanisms of action in terms of its effects on atrium remodelling and neurohormones.

Drug therapy for atrial fibrillation

Although the maintenance of sinus rhythm would be the ideal scenario for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), recent randomised trials have questioned the value of this approach. A careful interpretation of their results showed the limited efficacy of currently available antiarrhythmic drugs in maintaining sinus rhythm, as well as their potentially serious side effects. Therefore, it is imperative to develop safer and more effective drugs for AF. Based on our improved understanding of the pathophysiology of AF and the mechanism of action of antiarrhythmic drugs, significant efforts are being made to develop new antiarrhythmic agents that would prevent electrophysiological remodelling, would be selective for the atria and, therefore, would not prolong ventricular repolarisation, thus lacking any proarrhythmic effect.

Amiodarone versus sotalol for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The optimal pharmacologic means to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation remains controversial.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 665 patients who were receiving anticoagulants and had persistent atrial fibrillation to receive amiodarone (267 patients), sotalol (261 patients), or placebo (137 patients) and monitored them for 1 to 4.5 years. The primary end point was the time to recurrence of atrial fibrillation beginning on day 28, determined by means of weekly transtelephonic monitoring.

RESULTS

Spontaneous conversion occurred in 27.1 percent of the amiodarone group, 24.2 percent of the sotalol group, and 0.8 percent of the placebo group, and direct-current cardioversion failed in 27.7 percent, 26.5 percent, and 32.1 percent, respectively. The median times to a recurrence of atrial fibrillation were 487 days in the amiodarone group, 74 days in the sotalol group, and 6 days in the placebo group according to intention to treat and 809, 209, and 13 days, respectively, according to treatment received. Amiodarone was superior to sotalol (P<0.001) and to placebo (P<0.001), and sotalol was superior to placebo (P<0.001). In patients with ischemic heart disease, the median time to a recurrence of atrial fibrillation was 569 days with amiodarone therapy and 428 days with sotalol therapy (P=0.53). Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm significantly improved the quality of life and exercise capacity. There were no significant differences in major adverse events among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone and sotalol are equally efficacious in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Amiodarone is superior for maintaining sinus rhythm, but both drugs have similar efficacy in patients with ischemic heart disease. Sustained sinus rhythm is associated with an improved quality of life and improved exercise performance.

A review of the pharmacokinetics, electrophysiology and clinical efficacy of dronedarone

The results of major clinical trials and advances in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies are continuing to alter treatment approaches for both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Originally developed as an antianginal medication, amiodarone serves as the most effective antiarrhythmic drug in the treatment of both atrial and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. However, amiodarone has complex pharmacokinetics and is associated with serious extracardiac side effects, partially due to the presence of an iodine moiety. With a better understanding of the mechanisms of arrhythmias and antiarrhythmic drugs, new antiarrhythmic agents are currently under development with the hope that they will be more effective and safer than currently available drugs. One such drug that might potentially fulfill this hope is dronedarone. This amiodarone-like compound lacks the iodine moiety, and is similar in structure and electrophysiologic mechanisms of action to amiodarone, to date no evidence of liver, thyroid or pulmonary toxicity has been reported. Three clinical trials demonstrate efficacy in suppressing recurrences of atrial fibrillation and there is also evidence of a rate-slowing benefit during atrial fibrillation/flutter. However, the ANtiarrhythmic trial with DROnedarone in Moderate-to-severe congestive heart failure Evaluating morbidity Decrease (ANDROMEDA) study, performed in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, demonstrated excess noncardiac mortality in patients treated with dronedarone. Although effective in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, the future of this novel amiodarone-like drug remains uncertain until further clarification of the excess mortality in heart failure patients is better studied.

Valsartan reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) is generally considered a negative prognostic factor. Recent studies indicate that the incidence of AF might be decreased by renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors. The identification of a treatment to prevent its occurrence is likely to improve patients outcome. The aims of these subanalyses of Val-HeFT were to assess (a) the effects of valsartan in the prevention of AF, (b) the independent predictors of this event, and (c) the prognostic role of AF occurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The occurrence of AF was evaluated based on adverse event reports in the patients with HF enrolled in Val-HeFT. Patients were randomized to valsartan or placebo on top of their prescribed treatments for HF. During the mean 23 months of follow-up, AF was reported in 287/4395 patients (6.53%) in sinus rhythm at baseline, of whom 113/2205 (5.12%) were allocated to valsartan and 174/2190 (7.95%) to placebo (P = .0002). Multivariable analysis showed that brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels at baseline above the median value (HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.75-2.98), age over 70 years (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.95), male sex (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.18), and the valsartan treatment (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81) were independently associated with AF occurrence. Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that occurrence of AF was independently associated with a worse prognosis, with the adjusted hazard risks for all-cause mortality and combined mortality/morbidity of 1.40 (95% CI 1.16-1.58) and 1.38 (95% CI 1.12-1.70), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study demonstrate that (a) adding valsartan to prescribed therapy for HF significantly reduces the incidence of AF by 37%; (b) BNP level and advanced age were the strongest independent predictors for AF occurrence; and (c) AF occurrence further worsens the outcome in patients with HF.

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.

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.

Long-term Maintenance of Normal Sinus Rhythm in Patients With Current Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and propafenone when used for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with refractory AF.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blind trial.

SETTING

Tertiary cardiac referral center.

PATIENTS

One hundred forty-six consecutive patients (72 men; mean age, 63 +/- 10 years [+/- SD]) with recurrent symptomatic AF.

INTERVENTIONS

We studied 146 patients after restoration of sinus rhythm; patients were randomized to amiodarone, 200 mg/d, or propafenone, 450 mg/d. Follow-up clinical evaluations were conducted at the first, second, fourth, and sixth months, and at 3-month intervals thereafter. The proportion of patients relapsing to AF and/or experiencing side effects was calculated for each group using the Kaplan-Meier method. End point of the study was recurrence of AF or occurrence of side effects necessitating discontinuation of medication.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Of 146 patients, 72 received amiodarone and 74 received propafenone. The two groups were clinically similar. Of the 72 patients receiving amiodarone, AF developed in 25 patients, after an average of 9.8 months, compared to 33 of the 74 patients receiving propafenone after an average of 3.8 months. Twelve patients receiving amiodarone and 2 patients receiving propafenone had side effects necessitating withdrawal of medication while still in sinus rhythm.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone tends to be more effective than propafenone in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with AF, but this advantage is offset by a higher incidence of side effects.

A review of clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of newer antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation

Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of anti- arrhythmic drugs for terminating atrial fibrillation have demonstrated that rate control drugs have little to no added efficacy compared to placebo; however, spontaneous conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation is common. Antiarrhythmic drugs such as oral dofetilide, oral bolus-flecainide and propafenone and intravenous ibutilide all have a role in terminating atrial fibrillation. Active comparator trials have demonstrated that amiodarone is more efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm than propafenone and sotalol. Multiple trials have demonstrated the safety of amiodarone, sotalol, dofetilide and azimilide in a post-myocardial infarction population and amiodarone and dofetilide in a congestive heart failure population. Newer antiarrhythmic agents, some with novel mechanisms of action, will add to the pharmacologic armamentarium in treating atrial fibrillation.

Effect of amiodarone on dispersion of atrial refractoriness and cycle length in patients with atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Amiodarone is effective in preventing the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after cardioversion (CV). Dispersion of atrial refractoriness may be relevant to the generation of AF. We designed a study to determine the electrophysiologic effects of amiodarone in patients with previous early recurrence of AF after CV.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifteen patients with previous AF recurrence (without antiarrhythmic drugs) after CV (CV1) were selected for amiodarone therapy and repeat CV (CVamio). Prior to CV1, mean AF cycle length (AFCL) had been recorded at four atrial sites (right atrial appendage [RAA], distal coronary sinus [DCS], right atrial lateral wall [LAT], and interatrial septum [IAS]) and dispersion of AFCL had been calculated. These patients were treated with amiodarone and, prior to CVamio, AFCL was recorded at the four atrial sites as for CV1. Between CV1 and CVamio, AFCL increased at all atrial sites: 153 +/- 13 msec to 179 +/- 14 msec at RAA, 144 +/- 12 msec to 174 +/- 18 msec at DCS, 158 +/- 13 msec to 182 +/- 16 msec at LAT, and 161 +/- 18 msec to 181 +/- 17 msec at IAS. Dispersion of AFCL decreased from 24 +/- 10 msec at CV1 to 15 +/- 11 msec at CVamio (P = 0.01). The median time in sinus rhythm increased from 3.12 hours post CV1 to 28 days post CVamio, (P < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone causes a reduction in the dispersion of AFCL. This action may be relevant to the beneficial effects of amiodarone in patients with AF.

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.

Special problems with antiarrhythmic drugs in the elderly: safety, tolerability, and efficacy

With advancing age, atrial fibrillation is increasingly likely to indicate underlying cardiovascular disease and risk. An understanding of this is particularly important in the elderly patient, where likely triggers to atrial fibrillation and the influence of other pathologies on the safety and efficacy of proposed treatments will all contribute to optimal care of these patients. It is not yet clear whether rate control or cardioversion to sinus rhythm is the best strategy for the generality of patients with atrial fibrillation, and still less so for individuals. Age and comorbidity add complexities to this decision, which should inform the choice of drugs to be used. Further uncertainties arise from a literature that has often excluded elderly patients and derived its conclusions about mode of drug action from studies undertaken during sinus rhythm rather than atrial fibrillation. Despite these difficulties the careful evaluation of elderly patients with atrial fibrillation and their involvement in relevant choices should ensure optimum treatment for the individual.

Maintaining stability of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation: antiarrhythmic drugs versus ablation

In managing atrial fibrillation, the main therapeutic strategies include rate control, termination of the arrhythmia, and pr vention of recurrences and thromboembolic events. Rate control with digoxin, b-blockers, verapamil, and diltiazem may be preferred in drug refractory and sedentary patients with markedly dilated left atrium and atrial fibrillation of long duration. Drugs useful in the maintenance of sinus rhythm include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, sotalol, amiodarone, dofetilide, flecainide, and propafenone. In patients with structural heart disease, the class III antiarrhythmics are the initial drugs of choice, given their neutral effects on survival in a post-myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure population. Due to high recurrence rates with pharmacologic therapy, nonpharmacologic options of therapy include atrioventricular junction ablation, atrial defibrillators, catheter ablation of pulmonary vein foci, and attempts to perform an atrial Maze procedure using catheters. Hybrid therapy using drugs in combination with nonpharmacologic approaches will be used more frequently in the future for refractory patients.

Use of irbesartan to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation: a prospective and randomized study

BACKGROUND

Data from studies of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors provide evidence that the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays a role as a mediator of atrial remodeling in atrial fibrillation. The present study has evaluated the effect of treatment with the angiotensin I type 1 receptor blocker irbesartan on maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion from persistent atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To be included in the present study, patients must have had an episode of persistent atrial fibrillation for >7 days. The patients were then randomized and scheduled for electrical cardioversion. Two groups of patients were compared: Group I was treated with amiodarone, and group II was treated with amiodarone plus irbesartan. The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation. From a total of 186 patients assessed in the study, 154 were analyzed with the use of intention-to-treat analysis. Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated to group I and 79 to group II. After 2 months of follow-up in the intention-to-treat analysis, the group treated with irbesartan had fewer patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (Kaplan-Meier analysis, 84.79% versus 63.16%, P=0.008). The Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to first recurrence during the follow-up period (median time, 254 days [range, 60 to 710]) also showed that patients treated with irbesartan had a greater probability of remaining free of atrial fibrillation (79.52% versus 55.91%, P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with amiodarone plus irbesartan had a lower rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation than did patients treated with amiodarone alone.

Chronic and acute effects of dronedarone on the action potential of rabbit atrial muscle preparations: comparison with amiodarone

Dronedarone, a noniodinated derivative of amiodarone, is under evaluation as a potentially less toxic anti-arrhythmic alternative to amiodarone. The acute and chronic electrophysiologic effects of dronedarone and amiodarone were compared in isolated rabbit atrial muscle by microelectrode techniques. Four-week PO treatment with dronedarone or amiodarone increased action potential duration (APD90) (58 +/- 4 ms control versus 69 +/- 2 ms dronedarone, p < 0.01; 68 +/- 3 ms amiodarone, p < 0.01 for a 100-mg/kg/d dose) and effective refractory period (49 +/- 6 ms control versus 68 +/- 4 ms dronedarone, p < 0.01; 63 +/- 3 ms amiodarone, p < 0.01). The APD90 prolonged reverse rate-dependency. In contrast, acute superfusion with 10 microM dronedarone or amiodarone decreased APD90 (61 +/- 6 ms control versus 53 +/- 4 ms dronedarone, p < 0.05; 52 +/- 6 ms amiodarone, p < 0.05), effective refractory period (50 +/- 5 ms control versus 44 +/- 4 ms dronedarone, p < 0.05; 43 +/- 6 ms amiodarone, p < 0.05), and the maximum upstroke slope of the action potential (Vmax) (188 +/- 9 V/s control versus 182 +/- 11 V/s dronedarone p < 0.05; 182 +/- 11 V/s amiodarone, p < 0.05). Thus, chronic and acute electrophysiologic effects of dronedarone on rabbit atrial muscle are similar to those of amiodarone, suggesting a similar potential against atrial arrhythmias.

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.

Amiodarone versus diltiazem for rate control in critically ill patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate-lowering effect of diltiazem and two amiodarone regimens in critically ill patients with recent-onset atrial tachyarrhythmias.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

Medical cardiologic intensive care unit in a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty critically ill patients (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] III score 70 +/- 30, age 67 +/- 10 yrs).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with atrial fibrillation (n = 57), atrial flutter (n = 2), or atrial tachycardia (n = 1, and a heart rate consistently >120 beats/min over 30 mins were randomly assigned to one of three intravenous treatment regimens. Group 1 received diltiazem in a 25-mg bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 20 mg/hr for 24 hrs, group 2 received amiodarone in a 300-mg bolus, and group 3 received amiodarone in a 300-mg bolus followed by 45 mg/hr for 24 hrs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary study end point was a >30% rate reduction within 4 hrs. The secondary study end point was a heart rate <120 beats/min (a patient was considered to have uncontrolled tachycardia if heart rate was >120 beats/min 4 hrs after study drug). The primary study end point was achieved in 14/20 (70%), 11/20 (55%), and 15/20 (75%) of patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (chi2 = 1.95, p =.38). Uncontrolled tachycardia was more frequently observed in group 2 (0/20, 9/29 [55%], and 1/20 [5%] of patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; chi2 = 17, p =.00016). In patients achieving tachycardia control, diltiazem showed a significantly better rate reduction (p =.0001 group 1 vs. group 3, p =.0001 over time; p =.0001 group 1 vs. group 2, p =.001 over time) when compared with the amiodarone groups. Premature drug discontinuation due to hypotension was required significantly more often in group 1 (6/20 [30%], 0/20, and 1/20 [5%] for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; chi2 = 10, p =.01).

CONCLUSION

Sufficient rate control can be achieved in critically ill patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias using either diltiazem or amiodarone. Although diltiazem allowed for significantly better 24-hr heart rate control, this effect was offset by a significantly higher incidence of hypotension requiring discontinuation of the drug. Amiodarone may be an alternative in patients with severe hemodynamic compromise.

Frequency-dependent electrophysiological effect of ibutilide on human atrium and ventricle

Most of the class III antiarrhythmic agents developed in recent years blocks the rapid component of delayed rectifier potassium current (IKr). IKr blocker shows reverse use-dependency and also may cause torsades de pointes at slower heart rate. Ibutilide fumarate, a novel class III antiarrhythmic agent, increases window Na(+) current at the action potential plateau phase. We studied the rate-dependent effect of ibutilide on the electrophysiological parameters of human atrium and ventricle. Franz catheter and a pacing catheter were placed closely in the high right atrium and right ventricular apex to record monophasic action potentials (MAP) during pacing at cycle length (PCL) of 600 ms and 350 ms in eight patients who underwent electrophysiological study. MAP duration of right atrium (RA-MAPD) and right ventricle (RV-MAPD), effective refractory period of RA and RV (RA-ERP and RV-ERP), intra-atrial conduction time (IACT) and intra-ventricular conduction time (IVCT) were measured before and after intravenous administration of ibutilide (0.01 mg/kg up to 1mg). A conduction time from RA pacing spike to distal coronary sinus potential was used to measure IACT, while QRS duration of surface ECG during RV pacing was used to measure IVCT. Ibutilide prolonged RA-MAPD by 60 ms at PCL 600 ms and by 53 ms at PCL 350 ms; RV-MAPD by 48 ms at PCL 600 ms and by 55 ms at PCL 350 ms. Ibutilide did not affected RA and RV-ERP/MAPD ratio, IACT, and IVCT. Ibutilide prolongs MAPD and ERP of human atrium and ventricle without reverse use-dependency.

Second line pharmacological management of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation in france: a cost analysis

OBJECTIVES

Despite optimal pharmacological treatment a large proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib) are not arrhythmia-free, and remain at risk for complications such as stroke and cardiac morbidity. If first-line treatment fails, most patients receive second-line pharmacological treatment. The emergence of new technologies aimed at restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm, such as catheter ablation techniques, has increased the interest in the economic aspects of second-line pharmacological treatment. The objective was therefore to calculate the 5-year direct medical costs of second-line pharmacological management of paroxysmal and persistent Afib in France.

METHODS

The analysis was based on clinical and economic literature and the input of cardiologists-electrophysiologists. The analysis included probabilities of stroke, sudden cardiac death, other cardiac and noncardiac death, direct medical costs of drugs, follow-up and complications from the healthcare payer's perspective. Included treatment strategies were (1) rhythm control with class Ic and III antiarrhythmics and (2) rate control, consisting of digoxin combined with a beta-blocker or calcium antagonist. Both strategies included aspirin or anticoagulation therapy.

RESULTS

The average total 5-year cost of Afib was 16,539 Euro (FF 108,486) per patient. The result was stable to sensitivity analysis on incidence of stroke and type of stroke prevention. The main cost drivers were follow-up visits and hospitalizations and the cost of congestive heart failure. Both items being subject to some variation, they were submitted to sensitivity analysis showing minimal 5-year costs still over 14,483 Euro (FF 95,000).

CONCLUSIONS

Afib management places high demands on medical resources mainly through its complications and comorbidity.

Amiodarone, sotalol, or propafenone in atrial fibrillation: which is preferred to maintain normal sinus rhythm?

This randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of amiodarone, propafenone and sotalol in the prevention of atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

The population consisted of 214 consecutive patients (mean age 64 +/- 8 years, 106 men) with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation. After restoration of sinus rhythm, patients were randomized to amiodarone (200 mg/day), propafenone (450 mg/day) or sotalol (320 +/- 20 mg/day). Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 1, 2, 4 and 6 months, and at 3-month intervals thereafter. The proportion of patients developing recurrent atrial fibrillation and/or experiencing unacceptable adverse effects was measured in the three groups by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Recurrent atrial fibrillation occurred in 25 of the 75 patients treated with amiodarone compared to 51 of the 75 patients treated with sotalol and 24 of the 64 patients treated with propafenone. Fourteen patients treated with amiodarone, five with sotalol, and one with propafenone experienced adverse effects while in sinus rhythm, necessitating discontinuation of treatment (P < 0.001 for amiodarone and propafenone vs sotalol). The difference between amiodarone and propafenone was statistically nonsignificant when all events were included in the analysis. However, if the analysis was limited to recurrent atrial fibrillation events, amiodarone was more effective than propafenone (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone and propafenone were superior to sotalol in maintaining long-term normal sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. Amiodarone tended to be superior to propafenone, though its long-term efficacy was limited by adverse side effects.

Low dose amiodarone and sotalol in the treatment of recurrent, symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a comparative, placebo controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the safety and efficacy of amiodarone and sotalol in the treatment of patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, single blind, placebo controlled study.

SETTING

Tertiary cardiac referral centre.

PATIENTS

186 consecutive patients (97 men, 89 women; mean (SD) age, 63 (10) years) with recurrent, symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

INTERVENTIONS

65 patients were randomised to amiodarone, 61 to sotalol, and 60 to placebo. Patients receiving amiodarone were maintained at a dose of 200 mg/day after a 30 day loading phase. The sotalol dose was 160-480 mg daily, as tolerated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recurrence of atrial fibrillation or side effects.

RESULTS

In the amiodarone group, 31 of the 65 patients developed atrial fibrillation after an average of six months, while 15 (11 in sinus rhythm and four in atrial fibrillation) experienced significant side effects after an average of 16 months. In the sotalol group, relapse to atrial fibrillation occurred in 47 of the 61 patients after an average of eight months; three experienced side effects during the titration phase. In the placebo group, 53 of the 60 patients developed atrial fibrillation after an average of four months (p < 0.001 for amiodarone and sotalol v placebo; p < 0.001 for amiodarone v sotalol).

CONCLUSIONS

Both amiodarone and sotalol can be used for the maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Amiodarone is more effective but causes more side effects.

Appropriate outcome measures in trials evaluating treatment of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a widespread disease that has only recently received the focused attention of arrhythmia specialists despite being the most frequently occurring significant cardiac arrhythmia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The wide variety of trial designs used to evaluate AF treatment is a reflection of the diverse outcomes associated with this condition. The best trials assess the impact of treatment on a clearly measured outcome that is of clinical relevance to patients. This review discusses the different designs of AF treatment trials and analyzes the utility of the various outcomes that can be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

A sensible goal of AF treatment is to reduce the frequency of recurrences and to prolong the time between them. The most appropriate trials focus on AF recurrences that are symptomatic and therefore relevant to the patient. We still do not know if there is value in AF prevention, beyond preventing symptoms. However, ongoing and future studies will show whether AF suppression reduces the longer-term risks of stroke or death and improves patient quality of life. Cost of care will increasingly be studied in future trials of AF management.

Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators

BACKGROUND

The restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is a desirable goal in patients with atrial fibrillation, because the prevention of recurrences can improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that amiodarone in low doses may be more effective and safer than other agents in preventing recurrence, but this agent has not been tested in a large, randomized trial.

METHODS

We undertook a prospective, multicenter trial to test the hypothesis that low doses of amiodarone would be more efficacious in preventing recurrent atrial fibrillation than therapy with sotalol or propafenone. We randomly assigned patients who had had at least one episode of atrial fibrillation within the previous six months to amiodarone or to sotalol or propafenone, given in an open-label fashion. The patients in the group assigned to sotalol or propafenone underwent a second randomization to determine whether they would receive sotalol or propafenone first; if the first drug was unsuccessful the second agent was prescribed. Loading doses of the drugs were administered and electrical cardioversion was performed (if necessary) within 21 days after randomization for all patients in both groups. The follow-up period began 21 days after randomization. The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

Of the 403 patients in the study, 201 were assigned to amiodarone and 202 to either sotalol (101 patients) or propafenone (101 patients). After a mean of 16 months of follow-up, 71 of the patients who were assigned to amiodarone (35 percent) and 127 of those who were assigned to sotalol or propafenone (63 percent) had a recurrence of atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). Adverse events requiring the discontinuation of drug therapy occurred in 18 percent of the patients receiving amiodarone, as compared with 11 percent of those treated with sotalol or propafenone (P=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone is more effective than sotalol or propafenone for the prevention of recurrences of atrial fibrillation.

Pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation: an update

Therapy of atrial fibrillation remains difficult in many patients. There is increasing awareness that antiarrhythmic drug therapy instituted to maintain sinus rhythm after successful cardioversion of atrial fibrillation may pose a substantial risk to the patient. Therefore, results of prospective randomized trials are needed to allow a more evidence-based approach to the treatment of this common arrhythmia. Two recently published studies have shown superiority of amiodarone over conventional antiarrhythmic drugs in maintaining sinus rhythm. The largest such study published today, the Canadian Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (CTAF), has randomized 403 patients to amiodarone or to sotalol or propafenone. At the end of the observation period, amiodarone-treated patients were significantly more likely to remain in sinus rhythm than conventionally treated patients. A number of new antiarrhythmic drugs, mainly class III substances, are currently developed for the treatment of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Ibutilide has recently been released for intravenous administration, attempting pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter. It has been evaluated in a number of prospective trials, which showed a higher conversion rate in patients with atrial flutter. Dofetilide is another new compound developed mainly for maintenance of sinus rhythm after restoration of sinus rhythm. It has been evaluated in two prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials; moreover, analysis of the DIAMOND trials showed effectiveness of dofetilide in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with depressed left ventricular function without increased mortality when compared with placebo. Finally, several ongoing studies compare the therapeutic strategy of controlling ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation compared with the strategy of maintaining sinus rhythm. These trials will help to optimize therapy in atrial fibrillation, the most commonly encountered arrhythmia.

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.

Pharmacotherapy of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a widespread health problem and the drugs available for its treatment suffer from several drawbacks, including potentially lethal proarrhythmia, serious non-cardiac toxicity and limited efficacy. The evidence for efficacy of currently available anti-arrhythmic agents for sinus rhythm restoration and maintenance is reviewed, with emphasis on randomised trials when available. The current approach to thromboembolism prophylaxis in AF is summarised.