Intravenous amiodarone in treatment of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: results of a randomized, controlled study

Cardioversion for atrial fibrillation: treatment options and advances

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are two basic approaches to managing AF: slowing the ventricular rate, while allowing the arrhythmia to continue (the rate-control approach), and restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm (the rhythm-control approach) with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and/or ablation, electrical cardioversion (CV), if needed, or both. Strategy trials comparing rate and rhythm control have found no survival advantage of one approach over the other, but other considerations, such as symptom reduction, often necessitate pursuit of rhythm control. Electrical, or direct current, CV is a widely used and effective method for termination of nonparoxysmal AF, although its success can be affected by patient- and technique-related variables. Pharmacological CV options also exist and are preferable in specific circumstances. Both pharmacological and electrical CV are associated with the risk of proarrhythmia. Many AADs are under development for both CV and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Some are atrioselective, such as vernakalant, and target ion channels in the atria, with little or no effects in the ventricle. Vernakalant, currently under Food and Drug Administration review, appears to offer a safer profile than current CV agents and is likely to expand the role of pharmacological CV. Other new AADs that provide increased efficacy or safety while maintaining normal sinus rhythm may also be better than current drugs; if so, rate-rhythm comparisons will differ from those of previous studies. In conclusion, further trials should clarify the long-term safety profiles of new atrioselective agents and other investigational drugs and define their role in the treatment of AF.

Cardioprotection with beta-blockers: myths, facts and Pascal's wager

Beta-blockers were documented to reduce reinfarction rate more than 3 decades ago and subsequently touted as being cardioprotective for a broad spectrum of cardiovascular indications such as hypertension, diabetes, angina, atrial fibrillation as well as perioperatively in patients undergoing surgery. However, despite lowering blood pressure, beta-blockers have never shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated hypertension. Also, beta-blockers do not prevent heart failure in hypertension any better than any other antihypertensive drug class. Beta-blockers have been shown to increase the risk on new onset diabetes. When compared with nondiuretic antihypertensive drugs, beta-blockers increase all-cause mortality by 8% and stroke by 30% in patients with new onset diabetes. Beta-blockers are useful for rate control in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation but do not help restore sinus rhythm or have antifibrillatory effects in the atria. Beta-blockers provide symptomatic relief in patients with chronic stable angina but do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction. Adverse effects of beta-blockers are common including fatigue, dizziness, depression and sexual dysfunction. However, beta-blockers remain a cornerstone in the management of patients having suffered a myocardial infarction and for patients with heart failure. Thus, recent evidence argues against universal cardioprotective properties of beta-blockers but attest to their usefulness for specific cardiovascular indications.

Intravenous diltiazem is superior to intravenous amiodarone or digoxin for achieving ventricular rate control in patients with acute uncomplicated atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical efficacy of intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, and amiodarone for acute ventricular rate (VR) control in patients with acute symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) necessitating hospitalization.

DESIGN

Randomized control trial.

SETTING

Acute emergency medical admission unit in a regional teaching hospital in Hong Kong.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty adult patients with acute AF and rapid VR (>120 bpm).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, or amiodarone for VR control.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary end point was sustained VR control (<90 bpm) within 24 hours; the secondary end points included AF symptom improvement and length of hospitalization. At 24 hours, VR control was achieved in 119 of 150 patients (79%). The time to VR control was significantly shorter among patients in the diltiazem group (log-rank test, p < 0.0001) with the percentage of patients who achieved VR control being higher in the diltiazem group (90%) than the digoxin group (74%) and the amiodarone group (74%). The median time to VR control was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3 hours, 1-21 hours) compared with the digoxin (6 hours, 3-15 hours, p < 0.001) and amiodarone groups (7 hours, 1-18 hours, p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients in the diltiazem group persistently had the lowest mean VR after the first hour of drug administration compared with the other two groups (p < 0.05). The diltiazem group had the largest reduction in AF symptom frequency score and severity score (p < 0.0001). In addition, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3.9 +/- 1.6 days) compared with digoxin (4.7 +/- 2.1 days, p = 0.023) and amiodarone groups (4.7 +/- 2.2 days, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with digoxin and amiodarone, intravenous diltiazem was safe and effective in achieving VR control to improve symptoms and to reduce hospital stay in patients with acute AF.

A formula for the stratified selection of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the emergency setting: a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone is a commonly used medication in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) of recent onset.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to identify a possible formula for selecting Emergency Department (ED) patients with paroxysmal AF who will spontaneously restore sinus rhythm (SR), successfully restore SR with the use of loading intravenous (i.v.) amiodarone, or require 24-h maintenance amiodarone infusion.

METHODS

This retrospective pilot study included 141 patients with recent-onset AF. Patients who did not restore SR spontaneously received i.v. amiodarone (5 mg/kg) within a period of 30 min. In case of no response, an additional dosage of 1000 mg of i.v. amiodarone was administered over a period of 24 h. Binary logistic regression models were used to determine the predictors of spontaneous conversion and the response to amiodarone administration.

RESULTS

The formula ([heart rate/systolic blood pressure] + 0.1 × number of past AF incidences) was chosen as the one with the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. This index identified the patients who spontaneously restored SR (cutoff point 1.31 with 78.6% sensitivity and 77.9% specificity), whereas for patients who responded to the loading i.v. amiodarone dose, the use of the index (cutoff point 1.24) exhibited 84.1% sensitivity and 75.3% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

This formula may be a useful and reliable bedside diagnostic tool to identify AF patients most likely to spontaneously convert, or respond to loading amiodarone administration in the emergency setting. The use of this index also can assist in patient risk stratification.

Vernakalant Hydrochloride for Rapid Conversion of Atrial Fibrillation

Background— The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of vernakalant hydrochloride (RSD1235), a novel compound, for the conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods and Results— Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive vernakalant or placebo and were stratified by AF duration of 3 hours to 7 days (short duration) and 8 to 45 days (long duration). A first infusion of placebo or vernakalant (3 mg/kg) was given for 10 minutes, followed by a second infusion of placebo or vernakalant (2 mg/kg) 15 minutes later if AF was not terminated. The primary end point was conversion of AF to sinus rhythm for at least 1 minute within 90 minutes of the start of drug infusion in the short-duration AF group. A total of 336 patients were randomized and received treatment (short duration, n=220; long duration, n=116). Of the 145 vernakalant patients, 75 (51.7%) in the short-duration AF group converted to sinus rhythm (median time, 11 minutes) compared with 3 of the 75 placebo patients (4.0%; P <0.001). Overall, in the short- and long-duration AF groups, 83 of the 221 vernakalant patients (37.6%) experienced termination of AF compared with 3 of the 115 placebo patients (2.6%; P <0.001). Transient dysgeusia and sneezing were the most common side effects in vernakalant-treated patients. Four vernakalant-related serious adverse events (hypotension [2 events], complete atrioventricular block, and cardiogenic shock) occurred in 3 patients.

Conclusion— Vernakalant demonstrated rapid conversion of short-duration AF and was well tolerated.

Left atrial enlargement as a predictor of recurrences in lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

A mild increase in left atrial (LA) size predicts arrhythmia onset and adverse events in patients with lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (LPAF). However, the role of LA size as a predictor of LPAF recurrences is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The potential role of LA size in affecting the frequency of recurrent episodes in patients with LPAF was investigated.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients who were admitted for a first episode of LPAF and presenting with one recurrence (group A, n=20), two or three recurrences (group B, n=18), or four or more recurrences (group C, n=13) during an average follow-up period of two years were retrospectively selected. The M-mode LA anteroposterior diameter (LAAPd) was used as an echocardiographic surrogate of LA size.

RESULTS

At baseline, LA size was normal or borderline in the control group, group A and group B, but significantly increased in group C. At two years' follow-up, a significant further LA enlargement from baseline was observed in group B (LAAPd 40+/-1.1 mm versus 40.7+/-1.2 mm, P<0.01) and in group C (LAAPd 41.4+/-1.6 mm versus 42.7+/-1.7 mm, P<0.001), while LA size remained substantially unchanged in the control group and in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Observations confirmed the association of increased LA size and LPAF onset, and provide the first evidence for a potential role of LA progressive enlargement as a predictor of arrhythmic recurrences.

A practical guide for clinicians who treat patients with amiodarone: 2007

Amiodarone is commonly used to treat supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in various inpatient and outpatient settings. Over- and under-use of amiodarone is common, and data regarding patterns of use are sparse and largely anecdotal. Because of adverse drug reactions, proper use is essential to deriving optimal benefits from the drug with the least risk. This guide updates an earlier version published in 2000, reviews indications for use of amiodarone and recommends strategies to minimize adverse effects. The recommendations included herein are based on the best available data and the collective experience of the member of the writing committee.

Intravenous and oral administration of amiodarone for the treatment of recent onset atrial fibrillation after digoxin administration

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a significant contributor to cardiovascular morbidity. Amiodarone is a potent antiarrhythmic drug. The safety and efficacy of oral versus intravenous (i.v.) Amiodarone in the treatment of AF of recent onset (duration <48 h) was investigated.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 223 patients with symptomatic AF, of whom 110 received 600 mg oral Amiodarone (Group A) in three divided doses and 113 received i.v. Amiodarone (5 mg/kg over 30 min followed by 1000 mg over the next 24 h) (Group B). Digoxin was administered to all patients, who had not previously received it. All patients were monitored for 24 h.

RESULTS

Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 85.45% of group A and 82.30% in group B (p=NS). Mean time of cardioversion in group A was 20+/-4.5 h and in group B was 12+/-8 h (p<0,001). However, blood pressure (BP) in group A remained stable for the observation period, whereas it fell significantly in group B. Treatment was not discontinued in any of the patients in either group, however 13 patients in group B developed superficial phlebitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Both forms of the drug are extremely efficient in restoring sinus rhythm in AF of recent onset, although the i.v. form acts quicker. The oral form of the drug does not alter significantly the patients' BP.

Intravenous amiodarone for cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common causes of hospital admission, with a prevalence of up to 5% of the population, increasing with advancing age. Emergency direct current cardioversion is the therapy of choice when arrhythmia leads to hemodynamic compromise, but in patients who are hemodynamically stable, antiarrhythmic drugs are usually given to restore sinus rhythm.

HYPOTHESIS

The study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of intravenous amiodarone in cardioversion of recent-onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). No standard antiarrhythmic therapy has been accepted for pharmacologic cardioversion of AF. Amiodarone seems to be a promising candidate, but only few randomized trials are available and the results are inconsistent.

METHODS

In all, 160 patients with AF lasting < 24 h were randomly assigned (2:1 fashion) to the amiodarone group (n = 106) receiving 5 mg/kg as a 30 min intravenous (i.v.) infusion, followed by i.v. infusion of 10 mg/kg during 20 h diluted in 1000 ml of 10% glucose with 20 IU of rapid-action insulin, 80 mEq of potassium chloride, and 8 g of magnesium sulphate (GIKM), or to the control group (n = 54) receiving 1000 ml of GIKM alone. Treatment was continued up to 20 h independent of sinus rhythm restoration.

RESULTS

Sinus rhythm was restored 20 h after initiation of therapy in 88 (83%) patients in the amiodarone group and in 24 (44%) patients in the control group (p < 0.0001). The difference between efficacy of the two treatment modalities became significant already after 8 h of therapy (53 vs. 14 patients with sinus rhythm, respectively, p < 0.05). The mean dose of amiodarone administered until sinus rhythm restoration was 740 +/- 296 mg. The presence and the type of underlying heart disease did not influence the conversion rate in either group. In two patients (1.8%) treated with amiodarone, the return of sinus rhythm was preceded by asystole.

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone is effective in the termination of AF lasting < 24 h. It may be particularly useful in patients with organic heart disease in whom class I antiarrhythmic agents may be contraindicated. During treatment, the heart rhythm should be monitored continuously.

[Electrical and pharmacological strategies for early cardioversion of atrial fibrillation]

Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation as an element of rhythm control strategy is indicated in patients with first episode of atrial fibrillation, hemodynamic instability, recurrent atrial fibrillation with low probability of spontaneous conversion, or severe symptoms. Early cardioversion is performed within 48 h of onset of atrial fibrillation. The best point in time is still unknown. It can be performed by pharmacological, or, preferentially, by electrical cardioversion. The advantages of electrical cardioversion are higher efficacy and no proarrhythmic risk, however, short time general anaesthesia is needed. Electrical cardioversion is most effective when biphasic shocks are delivered. For pharmacological cardioversion, several antiarrhythmic drugs are available which have to be considered individually. Thromboembolic risk does not differ between the two methods. Early cardioversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm is most effective in atrial fibrillation of short duration, normal left atrial size and no or only mild structural heart disease.

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.

Analysis of Current Management of Atrial Fibrillation in the Acute Setting: GEFAUR-1 Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Limited information relative to the management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department (ED) daily practice is available. This study evaluates current management of atrial fibrillation in this setting to identify areas for practice improvement.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter observational study carried out in 12 EDs. Adults in whom atrial fibrillation was demonstrated in an ECG obtained in the ED were included. Clinical variables and atrial fibrillation management in the ED were prospectively collected by the treating physicians using a standardized questionnaire. Patients with rapid ventricular response (>100 beats/min) were considered eligible for rate control, and patients with recent-onset episodes (<48 hours) were eligible for rhythm control.

RESULTS

Of 1,178 patients, 41% presented with a rapid ventricular response and 21% had recent-onset episodes. Rhythm control was attempted in 42% of eligible patients, with antiarrhythmic drugs in 88% of cases (I-C drugs in 44% of patients; amiodarone in 43% of patients). Overall effectiveness of pharmacologic cardioversion was 63% (amiodarone 54.5%, flecainide 93%), whereas electrocardioversion was effective in 87.5% of cases. Rate control was performed in 68.3% of eligible patients (overall effectiveness 47.8%); digoxin was used in 67% of cases (effectiveness 45%). Both strategies were selected in 4.5% of cases, whereas no treatment for atrial fibrillation was performed in 60% of patients.

CONCLUSION

In our ED population, rate-control effectiveness is poor and rhythm control is not attempted in most recent-onset episodes. Methods to improve rate-control effectiveness, the selection of patients for rhythm control, and the use of electrocardioversion appear warranted.

Selection of drugs in pursuit of rate control strategy

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Based on multiple large randomized trials, rate control therapy has been shown to be safe and effective and is gaining greater acceptance as a frontline alternative to drugs to maintain sinus rhythm. Adequate rate control can be achieved by atrioventricular nodal blocking agents both in the acute and chronic settings. In refractory patients, other methods such as atrioventricular node ablation can be used to control rate.

Selection of Drugs in Pursuit of a Rhythm Control Strategy

A rhythm control strategy based on a combination of antiarrhythmic drugs and electrical cardioversion(s) has emerged as a viable alternative for treatment of atrial fibrillation, particularly when the arrhythmia is associated with symptoms, which may be poorly tolerated, or with congestive heart failure. Several classes of antiarrhythmic drugs are available to restore sinus rhythm by chemical cardioversion and to help maintain it once it has been achieved. In our discussion, we will detail aspects of their efficacy and safety, and attempt to outline a pragmatic clinical approach to their use. Some newer drugs are currently under investigation and hold promise for improved efficacy and/or more favorable side effect profile and will be mentioned in this article.

Effects of a high dose intravenous bolus amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation and a rapid ventricular rate

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone, given as intravenous bolus has not yet been studied in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high ventricular rate.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation and a ventricular rate above 135 bpm were randomized to receive either 450 mg amiodarone or 0.6 mg digoxin given as a single bolus through a peripheral venous access. If the ventricular rate exceeded 100 bpm after 30 min, another 300 mg amiodarone or 0.4 mg digoxin were added. Primary endpoints of the study were the ventricular rate and the occurrence of sinus rhythm after 30 and 60 min. Secondary endpoints were blood pressure during the first hour after drug administration, and safety regarding drug induced hypotension, and phlebitis at the infusion site.

RESULTS

Baseline heart rate was 144+/-19 in the amiodarone group and 145+/-15 in the digoxin group (p=0.72). Following amiodarone, heart rate was 104+/-25 after 30 min compared to 116+/-23 in the digoxin group (p=0.02) and 94+/-22 versus 105+/-22 after 60 min (p=0.03). After 30 min, sinus rhythm was documented in 14 (28%) patients following amiodarone compared to 3 (6%) patients in the digoxin group (p=0.003), and after 60 min in 21 (42%) versus 9 (18%) patients (p=0.012). Asymptomatic hypotension was observed in 4 amiodarone treated patients, and superficial phlebitis in 1 patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone, given as an intravenous bolus is relatively safe and more effective than digoxin for heart rate control and conversion to sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and a rapid ventricular rate.

Pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: current management and treatment options

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of arrhythmia, carrying high social costs. It is usually first seen by general practitioners or in emergency departments. Despite the availability of consensus guidelines, considerable variations exist in treatment practice, especially outside specialised cardiological settings. Cardioversion to sinus rhythm aims to: (i) restore the atrial contribution to ventricular filling/output; (ii) regularise ventricular rate; and (iii) interrupt atrial remodelling. Cardioversion always requires careful assessment of potential proarrhythmic and thromboembolic risks, and this translates into the need to personalise treatment decisions. Among the many clinical variables that affect strategy selection, time from onset is crucial. In selected patients, pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset AF can be a safely used, feasible and effective approach, even in internal medicine and emergency departments. In most cases of recent-onset AF, pharmacological cardioversion provides an important--and probably more cost effective--alternative to electrical cardioversion, which can then be employed as a second-line therapy for nonresponders. Class IC agents (flecainide or propafenone), which can be safely used in hospitalised patients with recent-onset AF without left ventricular dysfunction, can provide rapid conversion to sinus rhythm after either intravenous administration or oral loading. Although intravenous amiodarone requires longer conversion times, it is still the standard treatment for patients with heart failure. Ibutilide also provides good conversion rates and could be used for AF patients with left ventricular dysfunction (were it not for high costs). For long-lasting AF most pharmacological treatments have only limited efficacy and electrical cardioversion remains the gold standard in this setting. However, a widely used strategy involves pretreatment with amiodarone in the weeks before planned electrical cardioversion: this provides optimal prophylaxis and can sometimes even restore sinus rhythm. Dofetilide may also be capable of restoring sinus rhythm in up to 25-30% of patients and can be used in patients with heart failure. The potential risk of proarrhythmia increases the need for careful therapeutic decision making and management of pharmacological cardioversion. The results of recent trials (AFFIRM [Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management] and RACE [Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation]) on rate versus rhythm control strategies in the long term have led to a generalised shift in interest towards rate control. Although carefully designed studies are required to better define the role of pharmacological rhythm control in specific AF settings, this alternative option remains a recommendable strategy for many patients, especially those in acute care.

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.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy of atrial fibrillation

In the post-AFFIRM era, treatment of AF has become the treatment of symptoms. In some patients, this will be simple rate control, but there remain a significant cohort of patients in whom rate control alone does not give acceptable symptom relief. In this group, antiarrhythmic therapy still has a role, and the AFFIRM trial indicates that this therapeutic strategy is without significant deleterious effect on mortality. The choice of antiarrhythmic agent must be individualized according to underlying cardiac pathologies and comorbidities, however. Most recently, the introduction of dofetilide has widened the therapeutic options in patients with severe heart disease, and the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation indicated the superior efficacy of amiodarone at low doses. The release/ development of newer Class III antiarrhythmic agents may offer hope for the benefits of amiodarone without the serious adverse effects with long-term therapy.

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.

Rapid loading of sotalol or amiodarone for management of recent onset symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a randomized, digoxin-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone and sotalol are commonly used for the maintenance of sinus rhythm, but the efficacy of these agents administered as high-dose infusions for rapid conversion of atrial fibrillation is unknown. Use in this context would facilitate drug initiation in patients in whom ongoing prophylactic therapy is indicated.

METHODS

We assessed the efficacy and safety of rapid high-dose intravenous infusions of amiodarone and sotalol for heart rate control and rapid reversion to sinus rhythm in patients who came to the emergency department with recent-onset symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Patients (n = 140) were randomized to receive 1.5mg/kg of sotalol infused in 10 minutes, 10mg/kg of amiodarone in 30 minutes, or 500 microg of digoxin in 20 minutes. Electrical cardioversion was attempted for patients not converting to sinus rhythm within 12 hours.

RESULTS

The rapid infusion of sotalol or amiodarone resulted in more rapid rate control than digoxin. Each of the 3 trial strategies resulted in similar rates of pharmacological conversion to sinus rhythm (amiodarone, 51%; sotalol, 44%; digoxin, 50%; P = not significant). The overall rates of cardioversion after trial drug infusion and defibrillation were high for all groups (amiodarone, 94%; sotalol, 95%,; digoxin, 98%; P = not significant), but there was a trend toward a higher incidence of serious adverse reactions in the amiodarone group.

CONCLUSION

The rapid infusion of sotalol or amiodarone in patients with symptomatic recent-onset atrial fibrillation results in rapid control of ventricular rate. Even with high-dose rapid infusions, all 3 agents are associated with a poor overall reversion rate within 12 hours. Almost all patients were returned to sinus rhythm with a combination of pharmacological therapy and electrical cardioversion.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure:

AF in Heart Failure. Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure are commonly occurring cardiac disorders that often exist concomitantly. The prognostic significance of the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation, as an independent risk factor, in patients with heart failure remains controversial. Antiarrhythmic drugs with good hemodynamic profiles and neutral effects on survival are preferred treatments for converting atrial fibrillation and maintaining sinus rhythm. Other standard therapies for congestive heart failure, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers also have a role in the treatment of these coexisting disease states. The article presents an overview of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reviews the prevalence, prognostic significance, and efficacy of various antiarrhythmic agents for the conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm.

Spontaneous conversion of patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for electrical cardioversion: an ACUTE trial ancillary study

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to determine the characteristics and outcomes of spontaneous conversion (SC) to sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) of more than two days.

BACKGROUND

The Assessment of Cardioversion Using Transesophageal Echocardiography (ACUTE) multicenter study was a prospective trial in which transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-guided treatment was compared with conventional anticoagulation treatment for the management of patients with AF >2 days undergoing direct current cardioversion (DCC). In an ancillary analysis, we evaluated the baseline and outcome data in patients who underwent SC to SR before scheduled DCC.

METHODS

We identified 1,041 patients for this analysis after excluding patients on pre-existing antiarrhythmic agents. Patients with SC in the TEE-guided and conventional groups were first compared then pooled and compared with non-spontaneous conversion (No-SC) patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 167 of 1,041 (16%) patients underwent SC, with twice as many in the conventional compared with the TEE-guided group (110/523 [21%] vs. 57/518 [11%]; p < 0.001). When compared with No-SC patients, a higher proportion of SC patients maintained SR at eight weeks (87.2% vs. 48.9%, p < 0.001), without statistically significant differences in bleeding, thromboembolism or mortality. Multivariate predictors of SC were shorter duration of AF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class 1 or 2, smaller left atrial size, and absence of left atrial spontaneous echo contrast.

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous conversion was associated with shorter duration of AF, lower NYHA class, smaller left atrial size, and absence of left atrial spontaneous echo contrast. There was a better SR outcome in the SR group, but no differences in the other clinical end points. The conventional treatment strategy allowed greater opportunity for SC. In the absence of favorable predictors of SC, the TEE-guided approach should be considered.

Review of the current management of atrial fibrillation

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

Rate control in atrial fibrillation: choice of treatment and assessment of efficacy

The clinical relevance and high social costs of atrial fibrillation have boosted interest in rate control as a cost-effective alternative to long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm (i.e. rhythm control). Prospective studies show that rate control (coupled with thromboembolic prophylaxis) is a valuable treatment option for all forms of atrial fibrillation. The rationale for rate control is that high ventricular rates, frequently found in atrial fibrillation, lead to haemodynamic impairment, consisting of a variable combination of loss of atrial kick, irregularity in ventricular response and inappropriately rapid ventricular rate, depending on the type of underlying heart disease. Long-term persistence of tachycardia at a high ventricular rate can lead to various degrees of ventricular dysfunction and even to tachycardiomyopathy-related heart failure. Identification of this reversible and often concealed form of left ventricular dysfunction can permit effective management by rate (or rhythm) control. Although acute rate control (to reduce ventricular rate within hours) is still often based on digoxin administration, for patients without left ventricular dysfunction, calcium channel antagonists or beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) are generally more appropriate and effective. In chronic atrial fibrillation, long-term rate control (to reduce morbidity/mortality and improve quality of life) must be adapted to patients' individual characteristics to grant control during daily activities, including exercise. According to current guidelines, the clinical target of rate control should be a ventricular rate below 80-90 bpm at rest. However, in many patients, assessment of the appropriateness of different drugs should include exercise testing and 24h-Holter monitoring, for which specific guidelines are needed. In practice, rate control is considered a valid alternative to rhythm control. Recent prospective trials (e.g. the Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation [PIAF] and the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management [AFFIRM] trials) have shown that in selected patients, rate control provides similar benefits, more economically, in terms of quality of life and long-term mortality. The choice of a rate control medication (digoxin, beta-blockers, calcium channel antagonists or possibly amiodarone) or a non-pharmacological approach (mainly atrioventricular node ablation coupled with pacing) must currently be based on clinical assessment, which includes assessing the presence of underlying heart disease and haemodynamic impairment. Definite guidelines are required for each different subset of patients. Rate control is particularly tricky in patients with heart failure, for whom non-pharmacological options can also be considered. The preferred pharmacological options are beta-blockers for stabilised heart failure and digoxin for unstabilised forms.

New treatments for perioperative cardiac arrhythmias

Cardiac arrhythmias remain a major source of morbidity, mortality, and prolonged postoperative hospital stay in surgical patients. Recent studies in patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have expanded our knowledge in the management of cardiac arrhythmias. Future advances require additional studies focused on the unique proarrhythmic substrates in surgical patients, to provide a clear rationale for antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the perioperative period.

[Consensus document for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation in hospital emergency departments]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent arrhythmia in hospital emergency departments and is a serious disease associated with a twofold increase in morbidity and a high mortality rate. However, the management of AF in this scenario is variable and frequently inadequate. This is probably a consequence of the diverse clinical aspects and therapeutic options to consider in the management of patients with AF. Therefore, implementation of specific, coordinated management strategies by the different care providers involved is needed to improve the quality of care and optimize the use of human and material resources. This document presents the guidelines recommended by the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) for the management of AF in hospital emergency departments. These guidelines are based on published scientific evidence and are applicable to most emergency departments in Spain. Specific management strategies are proposed for the conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm, heart rate control during AF, prophylaxis for thrombi and emboli, and hospital admission and discharge protocols.

Amiodarone for pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation

The efficacy and safety of amiodarone for pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation was examined by reviewing the trials on the subject identified through a comprehensive literature search. Amiodarone has been used both intravenously (i.v.) and orally for the pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation. Intravenous amiodarone has been used as a bolus only or as a bolus followed by a continuous i.v. infusion until conversion or up to 24 h. The dose of i.v. bolus given ranged from 3 to 7 mg/kg body weight and that of infusion from 900 to 3000 mg/day. The efficacy reported is 34-69% with the bolus only regimens, and 55-95% with the bolus followed by infusion regimens. Only the higher dose (>1500 mg/day) amiodarone is superior to placebo in converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. The highest 24-h conversion rates have been reported with the i.v. regimen of 125 mg/h until conversion or a maximum of 3 g and the oral regimen of 25-30 mg/kg body weight administered as a single loading-dose (>90% and >85%, respectively). Most of the conversions occur after 6-8 h of the initiation of therapy. Predictors of successful conversion are shorter duration of atrial fibrillation, smaller left atrial size, and higher amiodarone dose. Amiodarone is not superior to the other antiarrhythmic drugs conventionally used for the pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation but is relatively safe in patients with structural heart disease and in those with depressed left ventricle function. Therefore, amiodarone could be used particularly in patients with structural heart disease and in those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction as the use of class IC drugs, propafenone and flecainide, for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is contraindicated in such patients.

Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options to maintain sinus rhythm: guideline-based and new approaches

Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia in patients with heart failure and is responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality. Restoration and preservation of sinus rhythm, therefore, has a premium. Of the numerous treatment options available, many must be avoided because of their potential for adverse effects or because of limited proof of efficacy in defined populations. Published guidelines provide help by synthesizing clinical trial data into a recommended approach. This article summarizes current information regarding the best methods applicable to patients with left ventricular dysfunction for rate control, sinus rhythm restoration and maintenance, and stroke prevention. New and evolving therapies and how they might fit into the evolving treatment paradigm are also briefly reviewed.

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.

Atrial fibrillation in the elderly: facts and management

Although atrial fibrillation is not widely known by the general public, in developed countries it is the most common arrhythmia. The incidence increases markedly with advancing age. Thus, with the growing proportion of elderly individuals, atrial fibrillation will come to represent a significant medical and socioeconomic problem. The consequences of atrial fibrillation have the greatest impact. The risk of thromboembolism is well known; other outcomes of atrial fibrillation are less well recognised, such as its relationship with dementia, depression and death. Such consequences are responsible for diminished quality of life and considerable economic cost. Atrial fibrillation is characterised by rapid and disorganised atrial activity, with a frequency between 300 and 600 beats/minute. The ventricles react irregularly, and may contract rapidly or slowly depending on the health of the conduction system. Clinical symptoms are varied, including palpitations, syncope, dizziness or embolic events. Atrial fibrillation may be paroxysmal, persistent or chronic, and a number of attacks are asymptomatic. Suspicion or confirmation of atrial fibrillation necessitates investigation and, as far as possible, appropriate treatment of underlying causes such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypoxia, hyperthyroidism and congestive heart failure. In the evaluation of atrial fibrillation, cardiac exploration is invaluable, including electrocardiogram (ECG) and echocardiography, with the aim of detecting cardiac abnormalities and directing management. In elderly patients (arbitrarily defined as aged >75 years), the management of atrial fibrillation varies; it requires an individual approach, which largely depends on comorbid conditions, underlying cardiac disease, and patient and physician preferences. This management is essentially based on pharmacological treatment, but there are also nonpharmacological options. Two alternatives are possible: restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, or control of ventricular rate, leaving the atria in arrhythmia. Pharmacological options include antiarrhythmic drugs, such as class III agents, beta-blockers and class IC agents. These drugs have some adverse effects, and careful monitoring is necessary. The nonpharmacological approach to atrial fibrillation includes external or internal direct-current cardioversion and new methods, such as catheter ablation of specific foci, an evolving science that has been shown to be successful in a very select group of atrial fibrillation patients. Another serious challenge in the management of chronic atrial fibrillation in older individuals is the prevention of stroke, its primary outcome, by choosing an appropriate antithrombotic treatment (aspirin or warfarin). Several risk-stratification schemes have been validated and may be helpful to determine the best antithrombotic choice in individual patients.

Amiodarone versus placebo and class Ic drugs for cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis compared amiodarone with placebo and class Ic drugs for the cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), defined as lasting less than seven days.

BACKGROUND

Despite the lack of trials that support its efficacy convincingly, amiodarone is widely used for conversion of recent-onset AF.

METHODS

We searched Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized trials on recent-onset AF comparing amiodarone to placebo or class Ic drugs. Data were combined according to a fixed effect model. The primary end point was the rate of conversion at 24 h. To study time-dependency of the drugs, efficacy at 1 to 2 h, 3 to 5 h, 6 to 8 h, and at 24 h was analyzed.

RESULTS

We found six studies randomizing amiodarone versus placebo (595 patients) and seven studies versus class Ic drugs (579 patients). There was no significant difference between amiodarone and placebo at 1 to 2 h, but significant efficacy was found after 6 to 8 h (relative risk [RR] 1.23, p = 0.022) and at 24 h (RR 1.44, p < 0.001). Efficacy with amiodarone was inferior to class Ic drugs for up to 8 h (RR 0.67, p < 0.001) but no difference was seen at 24 h (RR 0.95, p = 0.50). There were no major adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone is superior to placebo for cardioversion of AF, and even though the onset of conversion is delayed, its efficacy is similar at 24 h compared with class Ic drugs. These results favor amiodarone as a reasonable alternative for patients with recent AF in whom class Ic and other, more rapidly acting antiarrhythmic drugs cannot be used.

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.

Intravenous Amiodarone for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in the Nonsurgical Patient

Purpose: To review the literature to define the efficacy of intravenous (IV) amiodarone in the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the nonsurgical patient. Method: A MEDLINE search was conducted using the key words “intravenous amiodarone” and “atrial fibrillation.” All trials evaluating the use of intravenous amiodarone in the surgical setting were excluded. Results: Twenty articles were identified, which were divided into acute and chronic atrial fibrillation. Within the acute setting, IV amiodarone was used alone, compared to a placebo-control, or compared to active drug regimens. In the trials without a control group, it was difficult to determine how much of the effect was due to spontaneous conversion. When compared to placebo, IV amiodarone offered a 61% to 92% conversion at 24 hours. Compared to active drug therapy, there was a trend to increased efficacy at 24 hours. However, amiodarone was no more effective for the conversion of atrial fibrillation than alternative therapies. In the case of chronic atrial fibrillation, intravenous amiodarone had no benefit. The incidence of thrombophlebitis, bradycardia, and hypotension was quite high, reported to be around 15% to 30% in many of the trials. Conclusion: The use of intravenous amiodarone should not be recommended as the first line agent for the conversion of atrial fibrillation.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic agents at promoting sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to estimate the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs at promoting sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

Articles were identified by using a comprehensive search of English language papers indexed in Medline from 1966 to August 2001. For the outcomes of sinus rhythm and death, a random effects model was used to model repeated assessments within a study at different time points.

SETTING

Emergency departments and ambulatory clinics.

PATIENTS

Patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTERVENTIONS

Antiarrhythmic agents grouped according to their Vaughan-Williams class.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sinus rhythm and mortality.

RESULTS

91 articles met a priori criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Median duration of follow up was one day (range 0.04-1096, mean (SD) 46 (136) days). The median proportion of patients in sinus rhythm at follow up was 55% (range 0-100%) and 32% (range 0-90%) receiving active treatment and placebo, respectively. Median survival was 99% (range 55-100%) and 99% (range 55-100%). Compared with placebo, the following drug classes were associated with increased sinus rhythm at follow up: IA (treatment difference 21.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.3% to 26.8%); IC (treatment difference 33.1%, 95% CI 23.3% to 42.9%); and III (treatment difference 17.4%, 95% CI 11.5% to 23.3%). Class IC drugs were associated with increased sinus rhythm at follow up compared with class IV drugs (treatment difference 43.2%, 95% CI 11.5% to 75.0%). There was no significant difference in mortality between any drug classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Class IA, IC, and III drugs are associated with increased sinus rhythm at follow up compared with placebo. It is unclear whether any antiarrhythmic drug class is associated with increased or decreased mortality.

Oral loading with propafenone for conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a review on in-hospital treatment

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a very common arrhythmia. In order to treat acute AF rapidly, effective drug regimens are required. Propafenone is a class IC antiarrhythmic agent that is suitable for oral loading as it reaches peak plasma concentrations within 2 to 4 hours of administration. The use of propafenone loading in patients with AF must be based on appropriate patient selection in view of the negative inotropic effect and the potential proarrhythmic effects of the drug. A series of controlled trials in patients with recent-onset AF without heart failure who were hospitalised with enforced bed rest has shown that orally loaded propafenone (450 to 600 mg as single dose) exerts a relatively quick effect (within 3 to 4 hours) and a high rate of efficacy (72 to 78% within 8 hours). A potentially harmful effect of class IC agents is the risk of transforming AF into atrial flutter (3.5 to 5% of patients). However, atrial flutter with 1 : 1 atrioventricular response was observed in only two of 709 patients receiving propafenone (0.3% incidence). Nevertheless, the potential negative inotropic effect of propafenone demands careful patient selection, with systematic exclusion of patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestive heart failure. Oral loading with propafenone can be considered as an episodic treatment in patients with AF recurrences, as has been proposed for other drugs in the past. However, the safety of oral loading with propafenone as an outpatient treatment in appropriately selected patients has to be assessed by appropriately designed prospective studies.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation

Postoperative atrial fibrillation is associated with significant morbidity, longer hospital stay, and higher related costs. Although the etiologic mechanism of postoperative atrial fibrillation and its optimum method of prophylaxis or management are not well defined, progress has been made during the past decade. This review focused on recent findings leading to a better understanding of the mechanisms and management of atrial fibrillation after surgery and current approaches directed at prevention of thromboembolic sequelae. Because postoperative atrial fibrillation is a frequent complication, preoperative risk assessment algorithms are being proposed to minimize the number of patients in whom an intervention to prevent atrial fibrillation is undertaken, and thus, reduce toxicity due to antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Finally, current data suggest that once atrial fibrillation has occurred, a rate-control strategy during the first 8 to 12 hours is reasonable because 50% of those episodes will resolve during this period. Beyond this period, a more aggressive approach using class IC or III antiarrhythmic drugs will hopefully reduce the number of patients requiring anticoagulation and prolonged drug therapy.