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

Clinical review: clinical management of atrial fibrillation - rate control versus rhythm control

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in the critically ill and is associated with adverse outcomes. Although there are plausible benefits from conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm (the so-called 'rhythm-control' strategy), recent randomized trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of this approach over the rate-control strategy. Regardless of approach, continuous therapeutic anticoagulation is crucial for stroke prevention. This review addresses the findings of these studies and their implications for clinical management of patients with atrial fibrillation.

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.

Advances in the acute pharmacologic management of cardiac arrhythmias

Safe and effective control of rapid ventricular rates in acute-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) can be accomplished with intravenous calcium antagonists, beta-blockers or amiodarone; digoxin is less effective. If pharmacologic cardioversion of AF is desired, single oral doses of propafenone or flecainide are safe and effective in patients without structural heart disease. Intravenous ibulitide is moderately effective in the conversion of persistent AF or atrial flutter, with a small risk of proarrhythmia. In wide QRS complex tachycardia of uncertain origin, adenosine and lidocaine are no longer recommended. Procainamide or amiodarone are the treatment options, but attempts should be made to define the origin of tachycardia. In the treatment of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, lidocaine is no longer recommended; procainamide or amiodarone are the recommended therapies. In polymorphic ventricular tachycardia with a normal QT interval, beta-blockers are recommended. In shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation, lidocaine, and magnesium are ineffective; intravenous amiodarone should be the treatment of choice.