Propafenone for prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation

Propafenone use in coronary artery disease patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation

BACKGROUND

Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are frequently used after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Class IC AAD use after AF ablation in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain. The aim was to evaluate propafenone use in CAD patients undergoing AF ablation and to compare propafenone with amiodarone regarding ventricular arrhythmia and mortality.

METHODS

In this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, consecutive patients with mild to moderate CAD, undergoing AF ablation and receiving either propafenone (study group, n = 263) or amiodarone (control group, n = 499) in the blanking period, were included. After propensity score matching, 212 patients in each group were compared for the primary outcome defined as a composite of ventricular arrhythmic events, which included sudden cardiac death, sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, or non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). Cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Baseline variables of the study and control groups were well matched after propensity score matching. At 12-month follow up, 20 patients (4.7%) (11 in propafenone group and 9 in amiodarone group) experienced the primary outcome measure of NSVT (Gray test p = 0.645). No sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, sudden cardiac death, or cardiovascular mortality were observed. On multivariable competing analysis, age and diabetes but not propafenone use (hazard ratio 1.017; p = 0.804) were found to be independent and significant predictors of the primary outcome measure.

CONCLUSION

Propafenone use after AF ablation in patients with mild to moderate CAD had a safety profile similar to amiodarone and was not associated with major arrhythmic events.

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.

The Past, Present, and Potential Future of Sodium Channel Block as an Atrial Fibrillation Suppressing Strategy

Despite major advances in arrhythmia therapy, atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a challenge. A significant limitation in AF management is the lack of safe and effective drugs to restore and/or maintain sinus rhythm. The rational design of a new generation of AF-selective Na(+) channel blockers (NCBs) is emerging as a promising AF-suppressing strategy. Recent theoretical and experimental advances have generated insights into the mechanisms underlying AF maintenance and termination by antiarrhythmic drugs. Our understanding of antiarrhythmic drug-induced proarrhythmia has also grown in sophistication. These discoveries have created new possibilities in therapeutic targeting and renewed interest in improved NCB antiarrhythmic drugs. Recently described differences in atrial versus ventricular electrophysiology can be exploited in the prospective design of atrial-selective NCBs. Furthermore, state-dependent block has been shown to be an important modulator of NCB rate selectivity. Together, differential atrial-ventricular electrophysiological actions and state-dependent block form the backbone for the rational design of an AF-selective NCB. Synergistic combinations incorporating both NCB and block of K(+) currents may allow for further enhancement of AF selectivity. Future work on translating these basic research advances into the development of an optimized AF-selective NCB has the potential to provide safer and more effective pharmacotherapeutic options for AF, thereby fulfilling a major unmet clinical need.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pilsicainide for conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm in chronic atrial fibrillation: a placebo-controlled, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Pilsicainide is a newly synthesized antiarrhythmic agent with class Ic properties. Various antiarrhythmic agents have been used to convert atrial fibrillation (AF) to sinus rhythm or decrease the rate of relapse of AF.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 62 patients with chronic AF to oral treatment of either a placebo (10 patients) or 150 mg/day of pilsicainide (52 patients) for 4 weeks before electrical cardioversion. Before oral administration of pilsicainide, 41 patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography to investigate whether there was thrombus formation in the heart chambers. Patients without pharmacologic defibrillation underwent direct current cardioversion to restore sinus rhythm. After successful cardioversion, all patients continued to receive pilsicainide and were monitored for up to 2 years.

RESULTS

Before cardioversion, 11 patients in the pilsicainide group (21%) reverted to sinus rhythm. No patients in the placebo group reverted to sinus rhythm. Direct current cardioversion was performed in 51 patients; however, 8 patients were not converted to sinus rhythm (5 patients receiving pilsicainide, 3 patients receiving placebo), and 3 patients needed intracardiac cardioversion to convert to sinus rhythm. Asymptomatic bradyarrhythmias were observed in 5 patients in the pilsicainide group. During the follow-up period, 33 patients (71%) in the pilsicainide group remained in sinus rhythm at 1 month; this number decreased to 23 patients (49%) at 3 months, 20 (43%) at 6 months, 16 (34%) at 12 months, 16 (34%) at 18 months, and 16 (34%) at 24 months. All patients receiving placebo continued to receive placebo after the cardioversion, and AF recurred a few days after cardioversion in all cases. No independent discriminant variables were identified in the groups between maintenance and nonmaintenance of sinus rhythm. Although no serious side effects regarding pilsicainide have been documented, one patient died of acute myocardial infarction, most likely not related to pilsicainide administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Pilsicainide is effective in restoring or maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with chronic AF lasting longer than an average duration of 22 months. No major adverse effects were observed.

Safety of oral propafenone in the conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm: a prospective parallel placebo-controlled multicentre study

AIM

Oral propafenone is effective in restoring sinus rhythm however the proarrhythmic effects are still unknown. The Safety Antiarrhythmic Therapy Evaluation (SATE) trial was a prospective randomized placebo-controlled multicentre study which evaluated the safety of acute oral loading dose of propafenone in patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation. Secondary end-points were to evaluate the effect of digitalis added to propafenone in ventricular rate control and the efficacy of propafenone alone or added to digitalis compared with efficacy of digitalis plus quinidine.

METHODS AND RESULTS

246 patients (126 male; 58+/-11 years) with atrial fibrillation of <48 h duration were randomly allocated to one of four groups: digitalis 0.75-1 mg i.v. plus quinidine 1100 mg (D+Q, 70 patients); propafenone 450-600 mg orally (PNF, 66 patients); propafenone 450-600 mg orally plus digitalis 0.750-1 mg i.v. (PNF+D, 70 patients); placebo (Pl, 40 patients). All patients underwent 24-h ECG Holter monitoring. Safety was assessed by evaluating the appearance of adverse events classified as mild, moderate and severe. No severe adverse events were reported. Short lasting asymptomatic atrial flutter episodes with atrio-ventricular conduction > or =2:1 were observed in 14% of the D+Q group, 21% PNF, 18% PNF+D and in 8% Pl. One patient in the D+Q group and four in the PNF+D group showed asymptomatic runs of 3-4 ventricular ectopic beats. Reversible sinus atrial blocks (<3 s) were detected in two patients of the D+Q group and in two of the PNF group. In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation the ventricular rate was similar in the four study groups. At 3 h the high efficacy of propafenone was confirmed. At the 24th hour no differences were found between active treatment and placebo arms.

CONCLUSION

Propafenone in a single oral loading dose is safe and promptly effective in patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation.

Placebo-controlled evaluations of propafenone for atrial tachyarrhythmias

This review summarizes the results of placebo-controlled trials of propafenone, a class IC antiarrhythmic drug, in patients with supraventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation (AF), and atrial flutter. Success rates for cardioversion from AF or flutter to sinus rhythm of 9-93% have been obtained with intravenous propafenone. The duration of arrhythmia is an important factor in the degree of success. The use of a single oral dose has also been reported to be effective in a number of studies. Several placebo-controlled studies have confirmed the effectiveness of propafenone in the long-term suppression of both suproventricular tachycardia and AF and flutter. These reported trials have shown consistent benefit with propafenone compared with placebo in preventing arrhythmia recurrence. The adverse side effect profile for propafenone has also been reviewed with particular reference to the potential for proarrhythmia. The rate of side effects is dose-dependent and tends to be higher in patients with underlying structural heart disease. Overall propafenone has been shown to be an effective antiarrhythmic drug with an acceptable side effect profile for the acute and long-term treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias.

Cost effectiveness of inpatient initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy for supraventricular tachycardias

This study assessed the cost effectiveness of inpatient antiarrhythmic therapy initiation for supraventricular tachycardias using a metaanalysis of proarrhythmic risk and a decision analysis that compared inpatient to outpatient therapy initiation. A MEDLINE search of trials of antiarrhythmic therapy for supraventricular tachycardias was performed, and episodes of cardiac arrest, sudden or unexplained death, syncope, and sustained or unstable ventricular arrhythmias were recorded. A weighted average event rate, by sample size, was calculated and applied to a clinical decision model of therapy initiation in which patients were either hospitalized for 72 hours or treated as outpatients. Fifty-seven drug trials involving 2,822 patients met study criteria. Based on a 72-hour weighted average event rate of 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.2% to 1.2%), inpatient therapy initiation cost $19,231 per year of life saved for a 60-year-old patient with a normal life expectancy. Hospitalization remained cost effective when event rates and life expectancies were varied to model hypothetical clinical scenarios. For example, cost-effectiveness ratios for a 40-year-old without structural heart disease and a 60-year-old with structural heart disease were $37,510 and $33,310, respectively, per year of life saved. Thus, a 72-hour hospitalization for antiarrhythmic therapy initiation is cost effective for most patients with supraventricular tachycardias.

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

The main goal of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propafenone versus sotalol as an initial choice of treatment in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), according to a double-blind randomized system. In the oral propafenone group (n = 41), 2 patients (5%) discontinued therapy because of gastrointestinal discomfort in 1 and dizziness in the other. Thirty-one (79%) of the 39 patients who continued the treatment had effective response to oral propafenone (>75% reduction of symptomatic arrhythmic attacks) on a mean dose of 663 +/- 99 mg/day with a decrease in attack frequency from 10 +/- 3 to 2 +/- 1 times per week. In the oral sotalol group (n = 38), 4 patients (11%) discontinued treatment because of dizziness in 2 and symptomatic bradycardia in 2. Twenty-six of the 34 patients (76%) who continued the treatment had effective response to oral sotalol on a mean dose of 200 +/- 57 mg/day with a decrease in attack frequency from 11 +/- 3 to 2 +/- 1 times per week. Comparisons of the results between propafenone and sotalol groups showed a similar incidence of intolerable (2 of 41 vs 4 of 38, p = 0.42) and tolerable side effects (10 of 39 vs 8 of 34, p = 1.0). The attack frequency at baseline (11 +/- 3 vs 10 +/- 4 times per week, p = 0.23) and after treatment (3 +/- 1 vs 3 +/- 2 times per week, p = 0.85) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The incidence of effective response to drugs was also similar (31 of 39 vs 26 of 34, p = 0.78). Furthermore, the decrease of symptom scores (-32 +/- 8% vs -29 +/- 7%, p = 0.18) and percentage decrease of ventricular rate (-15 +/- 4% vs -18 +/- 4%, p = 0.10) during AF were also similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, oral propafenone and sotalol are equally effective and safe in preventing attacks and alleviating symptoms of paroxysmal AF.

Pharmacologic control of heart rate in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is associated with a resting heart rate in excess of age-matched subjects in sinus rhythm, and there is an additional steep rise in rate during exertion. This article reviews the factors responsible for this tachycardia, the pharmacologic agents commonly used for heart rate control, and the effects of atrial antiarrhythmic agents on the heart rate during paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Effects of oral propafenone administration before electrical cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation: a placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to evaluate the benefits and risks of administering propafenone before electrical defibrillation for chronic atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND

In this context, an antiarrhythmic drug-although potentially useful in preventing early recurrence of arrhythmia-could adversely affect the defibrillation threshold and reduce the cardioversion success rate.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 100 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation to oral treatment with either placebo (51 patients) or 750 mg/day of propafenone (49 patients) for 48 h before administration of direct current shock. After successful cardioversion, all patients received propafenone therapy and were followed up for 48 h.

RESULTS

Before defibrillation, three patients in the propafenone group (6.1%) had reversion to sinus rhythm and one had sustained ventricular tachycardia. Shock efficacy (82.4% vs. 84.4%) and the cumulative effective energy (395 +/- 258 vs. 421 +/- 236 J) were not different between the placebo and propafenone groups. In the propafenone group, 11 patients had their arrhythmia transformed into atrial flutter and required a lower energy level for arrhythmia conversion than did the other patients with continued atrial fibrillation (245 +/- 197 vs. 493 +/- 215 J, p < 0.01); the latter patients showed a trend (p < 0.10) toward higher energy requirements than that of patients who received placebo. The incidence of asymptomatic bradyarrhythmias was higher in the propafenone group (28.9% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.02), but more patients who received placebo had early recurrence of atrial fibrillation (16.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.02). Two days after cardioversion, more patients given propafenone (73.5% vs. 52.9%, p < 0.05) were discharged from the hospital with sinus rhythm. During the in-hospital stay, propafenone was withdrawn from six patients (6.6%) because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Propafenone, given before electrical cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation does not affect the mean defibrillation threshold or the rate of successful arrhythmia conversion. It decreases the recurrence of atrial fibrillation early after shock, thus allowing more patients to be discharged from the hospital with sinus rhythm.

Propafenone versus disopyramide for maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation: a randomized, double-blind study. PRODIS Study Group

Safety and efficacy of propafenone and disopyramide for long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion was studied in 56 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (median arrhythmia duration, 5 months). After cardioversion, patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind propafenone 300 mg tid (25 patients) or disopyramide 250 mg tid (31 patients). Downward dose adjustment was allowed in case of intolerable side effects. The endpoints were arrhythmia recurrence; and side effects not amenable to dose reduction. For patients randomized to propafenone (mean dose, 878 +/- 65 mg/day), 66% [95% confidence interval [(CI) 46-85%] and 55% (95% CI, 34-76%) remained in sinus rhythm at 3 and 6 months, respectively (Kaplan-Meier method). Similar figures were found with disopyramide (mean dose, 704 +/- 81 mg/day): 71% (95% CI, 54-87%) and 67% (95% CI, 50-84%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively (p = NS). In the patients with a relapse of atrial fibrillation, the ventricular rate while still using the prophylactic agents did not increase significantly compared with precardioversion. However, one patient on disopyramide had an excessively high relapse heart rate (170 vs. 100 beats/min). Side effects were more frequent on disopyramide. Side effects necessitating drug discontinuation occurred in 12 patients: 4 patients (16%) on propafenone and 8 (26%) on disopyramide. Severe adverse effects occurred in two patients, who developed heart failure while on disopyramide. There were no proarrhythmic events or deaths. Thus, propafenone and disopyramide are equally effective for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Propafenone is, however, better tolerated than disopyramide, which may cause heart failure.

Propafenone: an effective agent for the management of supraventricular arrhythmias

Propafenone is a sodium channel blocking antiarrhythmic drug. It also has beta-adrenergic, potassium channel, and weak calcium channel blocking activity. The drug is metabolized in the liver with rates dependent on the debrisoquin phenotype. The saturable metabolism results in nonlinear pharmacokinetics. The metabolites retain sodium channel blocking activity but little beta-adrenergic blocking activity. Both controlled and noncontrolled studies have documented its efficacy in a variety of supraventricular arrhythmias. Intravenous propafenone is effective in converting atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm. Chronic oral administration decreases the frequency of recurrence of atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. The drug is particularly effective in the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. The drug may produce SA block in patients with underlying sinus node dysfunction. Propafenone has comparatively few noncardiac side effects. It is a useful primary drug or an alternative to more commonly used drugs used for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias.

Safety of long-term flecainide and propafenone in the management of patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: report from the Flecainide and Propafenone Italian Study Investigators

To compare the relative safety of flecainide acetate to propafenone HCl during long-term treatment (12 months), we conducted a randomized, open-label, comparative, parallel, multicenter trial in 200 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) and no history of heart disease. Initial daily doses were flecainide 200 mg (n = 97) or propafenone 450 mg (n = 103). Dose escalations up to a maximum of flecainide 300 mg/day or propafenone 900 mg/day were permitted after > or = 2 attacks of paroxysmal AF. Patients were assessed for safety and drug tolerance at designated intervals over the 12-month study unless discontinued for adverse experience or inadequate response. Ten patients on flecainide reported 14 cardiac adverse experiences; 4 discontinued the drug. Seven propafenone patients reported 8 cardiac adverse experiences; 5 discontinued the drug. Three proarrhythmic events occurred: 1 propafenone patient developed ventricular tachycardia and 2 flecainide patients experienced AF with a rapid ventricular response. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the probability of safe and effective treatment after 12 months was 77% for flecainide-treated patients and 75% for the propafenone-treated patients. There was an acceptable risk-benefit profile in patients with paroxysmal AF and no evidence of clinically significant heart disease who were treated with flecainide or propafenone for 12 months. Further, there was no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy between flecainide and propafenone in this study.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of flecainide versus propafenone in hospital out-patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation/flutter. The Flecainide AF French Study Group

To assess the cardiac and extracardiac safety and efficacy of flecainide versus propafenone in patients suffering from episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter, 97 patients were enrolled in a randomized, open-label, long-term, parallel, comparative multicenter study. The diagnosis of paroxysmal AF or atrial flutter had to be fully documented prior to inclusion in the study. Of the 97 patients enrolled in the study, 48 patients (25 men, 23 women, mean age 62.4 +/- 12.3 years) received flecainide; 49 patients (26 men, 23 women, mean age 63.6 +/- 12.2 years) received propafenone. The initial dose of flecainide was 50 mg twice daily, and this could be increased in steps of 50 mg twice daily every 4 days to a maximum of 300 mg/day. The initial dose of propafenone was 300 mg twice daily and this could be increased in steps of 300 mg every 4 days to a maximum of 1200 mg/day. At each visit, medical events, vital sign measurements (blood pressure, pulse rate), concomitant medications, adverse experiences, and study drug dosage changes were evaluated. Routine clinical laboratory tests were evaluated at the month 6 visit, and a 24-hr Holter recording was obtained at the month 1 visit. Almost half (45) of the patients were discontinued from the study before completing 1 year of therapy. The probability of successful treatment versus time--i.e., the proportion of patients who remained on therapy over the course of 1 year therapy--was 0.619 for the flecainide group and 0.469 for the propafenone group (p = 0.079; difference not significant). The difference is largely attributed to the higher proportion of patients in the propafenone group (9) than in the flecainide group (2) who experienced side effects important enough to stop the treatment. (The incidence of side effects was not statistically different between treatment groups, although it was higher in the propafenone group.) The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment due to inadequate response was similar in the 2 groups: 11 patients (22.9%) in the flecainide group and 12 patients (24.4%) in the propafenone group withdrew from the study, primarily because of an inadequate response, i.e., they experienced an increase in duration, frequency, and severity of attacks of AF or atrial flutter. Neurologic signs, central and peripheral, were mostly encountered in the flecainide group (8.5%), and, gastrointestinal effects were more often reported in the propafenone group (16.7%). In paroxysmal AF and paroxysmal atrial flutter, flecainide and propafenone are equally effective. However, in this study the probability of a patient's staying on flecainide after 1 year had a tendency to be higher than the probability of staying on propafenone, due to a greater proportion of secondary effects with propafenone.

Role of transesophageal pacing in recurrent atrial fibrillation. Experience with propafenone

To assess the role of transesophageal pacing (TP) at very high rates in the follow-up of patients with recurrent and sustained paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) on therapy, the authors studied 15 patients (10 women, 5 men; aged forty-four to seventy-seven years old). Of them only 1 had a mild mitral regurgitation; none had hyperthyroidism or acute ischemic heart disease. They tested propafenone (P) at a dose of 1.4-2 mg/kg over ten minutes as an intravenous bolus and 0.5 mg/minute as intravenous maintenance for two hours and then 300 mg twice daily orally and chronically. Serial TPs at very rapid rates (up to 600 bpm) were performed to test the long-term efficacy of P to prevent paroxysmal AF. The mean follow-up was fifteen months (nine to twenty-four months).

RESULTS

Intravenous P converted AF in five to ninety minutes (mean twenty-one minutes) in 9/15 patients (conversion rate of 60%); in an additional 4 patients oral P converted AF in two to fifteen hours. In the other 2 patients P failed to convert AF. Three patients experienced recurrence of AF in the early follow-up. Of the 10 patients who completed the entire protocol, only 1, who had mild mitral prolapse regurgitation and AF induction by TP, experienced new episodes of AF during follow-up. No significant side effects were noted during P therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Propafenone appears safe and effective for controlling and preventing recurrent and sustained AF. Transesophageal pacing is a valid tool for predicting the efficacy of long-term therapy in the follow-up of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Effects of flecainide and propafenone on systolic performance in subjects with normal cardiac function

Flecainide and propafenone are effective in suppressing both ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, but their efficacy is often limited by dose-related side effects. This study was performed to evaluate noninvasively the effects of intravenous flecainide and propafenone on left ventricular systolic function indices in a selected population of 40 subjects (28 men and 12 women; mean age, 25 years) with normal cardiac structure and performance. Echocardiographic indexes of global systolic pump function (ejection fraction [EF] and percentage of fractional shortening [percent FS]) as well as monodimensional parameters of the intraventricular septum (IVS) and left ventricular posterior wall (PW) contractility (percent systolic thickening [percent th] and systolic excursion [ex]) were assessed in all subjects at baseline, immediately after, and in the early recovery (15 min) after randomized injection of either flecainide or propafenone. Heart rate and blood pressure did not significantly change after both drugs. A significant increase (p < 0.001) in left ventricular systolic internal diameter was observed after both flecainide and propafenone; simultaneously a significant decrease of percent FS (p < 0.001), EF (p < 0.001), PW percent thickening (th) (p < 0.001), and PWex (p < 0.001 after flecainide and p < 0.01 after propafenone) was recorded. These changes were comparable and promptly reversible. In analyzing individual data, a marked systolic dysfunction was observed in two patients after intravenous flecainide (percent FS from 37 percent to 17 percent and from 42 percent to 13 percent; EF from 55 percent to 40 percent and from 65 percent to 35 percent, respectively) and in one patient after intravenous propafenone (percent FS from 30 percent to 15 percent; EF from 58 percent to 35 percent). We conclude that both intravenous flecainide and propafenone exhibit mild negative inotropic effects leading to a moderate and reversible reduction of left ventricular systolic performance; however, in some cases, a dramatic impairment of systolic pump function may occur, suggesting careful use of both drugs as first-line agents also in normal subjects; finally, the true incidence of this deleterious effect is still unknown.

Effects of acute and prolonged administration of propafenone on internal defibrillation in the pig

Some antiarrhythmic sodium channel blocking drugs have been found to increase the energy necessary for internal defibrillation. Propafenone is a new drug that has been shown to be efficacious in the therapy of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias, and is of potential use in patients with defibrillators. The effects of short-term and prolonged propafenone administration on the internal defibrillation threshold (DFT) were determined in 43 pigs randomized to one of four groups: saline infusion (n = 10); propafenone infusion (n = 10); placebo administration for 8 days (n = 10); or propafenone administration for 8 days (n = 13). Two mesh electrodes were sutured on the right lateral and left lateral epicardial surface and current was delivered from the right electrode to the left electrode. Triplicate DFTs were obtained before and at 40 and 80 minutes after infusion of drug or placebo. In pigs receiving long-term administration, after baseline DFTs were obtained the electrodes were removed and the chest was closed. Following 8 days of drug or placebo administration, DFTs were redetermined. No changes were observed in the short- or long-term control groups. DFTs were lower after propafenone administration: either short-term infusion (20 +/- 6.2 joules at baseline; 15.6 +/- 5 joules at 40 minutes, p less than 0.05; 10.2 +/- 6 joules at 80 minutes, p less than 0.001) or long-term administration (17.8 +/- 2.6 joules at baseline versus 12 +/- 3.2 joules on drug, p less than 0.002). Decreased ventricular cycle lengths were found with acute administration of propafenone. Three pigs died during long-term administration of propafenone.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effects of flecainide on the rate dependence of atrial refractoriness, atrial repolarization and atrioventricular node conduction in anesthetized dogs

Flecainide is effective against certain supraventricular arrhythmias (atrial fibrillation and atrioventricular [AV] node reentrant tachycardia), but its mechanisms of action are unknown. Previous in vitro work suggests that flecainide attenuates rate-dependent action potential duration shortening, producing tachycardia-dependent prolongation of the refractory period. This study was designed to assess whether similar changes occur in vivo and whether the effects of flecainide on AV node conduction depend on heart rate and on direction of propagation (anterograde vs. retrograde). The effects of flecainide at three clinically relevant concentrations were assessed in open chest, morphine-chloralose-anesthetized dogs. Flecainide increased atrial refractory period in a concentration- and rate-related fashion (e.g., dose 3 increased the atrial effective refractory period by 9 +/- 4% at a cycle length of 1,000 ms but by 36 +/- 5% and 55 +/- 10% at a basic cycle length of 400 and 300 ms, respectively; p less than 0.001 for each). Flecainide attenuated the action potential duration accommodation (measured by monophasic action potentials) to heart rate, causing tachycardia-dependent action potential duration prolongation and accounting for most of the rate-dependent atrial effective refractory period changes. Flecainide increased Wenckebach cycle length, but the concentration-response curve was much steeper in the retrograde (slope 41 +/- 7 ms/mumol.liter-1) than in the anterograde direction (17 +/- 4 ms/mumol.liter-1; p less than 0.01), indicating more potent effects on retrograde conduction. The depressant action of the drug on the AV node was also rate dependent, with an effect on the AH interval at a basic cycle length of 400 ms that averaged 1.8, 1.5 and 2 times that at a basic cycle length of 1,000 ms for doses 1 (p less than 0.05), 2 (p less than 0.01) and 3 (p less than 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Flecainide suppresses atrial action potential duration accommodation to heart rate changes in vivo, leading to rate-dependent atrial effective refractory period prolongation, which may be important in suppressing atrial fibrillation. 2) The drug has frequency- and direction-dependent effects on AV node conduction, which may lead to selective antiarrhythmic actions during AV node reentry.

Quantitative relationship between atrial refractoriness and the dispersion of refractoriness in atrial vulnerability

We investigated the quantitative relationship between the atrial refractory period and the dispersion of refractoriness with respect to atrial vulnerability in 19 adult mongrel dogs. The atrial effective refractory period (AERP) was measured at the sinus node area (SNA), the low posterior right atrium (LRA), and the distal coronary sinus. The study was performed under the following conditions: (1) control status; (2) hypothermia (30 degrees C); (3) vagus nerve stimulation; and (4) a combination of (2) and (3). The subjects were separated into two groups: atrial fibrillation (AF) (+) group (n = 23), which developed AF by atrial extrastimulus due to increased vulnerability, and AF (-) group (n = 39), which did not develop AF. The mean AERP was 97 +/- 21 msec (mean +/- SD) in the AF (+) group and 124 +/- 23 msec in the AF (-) group, with a significantly shorter refractory period seen in the former (P less than 0.001). The dispersion of refractoriness was 59 +/- 24 msec in the AF (+) group and 29 +/- 18 msec in the AF (-) group, with a significant increase noted in the former (P less than 0.001). On X-Y coordinates (where X denotes the AERP, and Y denotes the dispersion of refractoriness) the data from the AF (+) group were clustered in the upper left region of the graph while the data from the AF (-) group were clustered in the lower right region. These two groups were separated by a linear equation of Y = 0.86X - 57 with a predictability of 90.3%.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The drug treatment of atrial fibrillation

1. Atrial fibrillation is an inefficient cardiac rhythm associated with impaired exercise tolerance, exertional dyspnoea, palpitation and a substantial risk of thromboembolism. 2. The first decision in management is to consider cardioversion which can be achieved in suitable cases electrically, or pharmacologically with a class Ic antiarrhythmic drug like flecainide or propafenone. 3. Prophylaxis in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is best achieved with a class Ic drug or a class III drug such as sotalol or amiodarone. 4. Control of ventricular rate in chronic atrial fibrillation can be achieved by pharmacological manipulation of the atrioventricular node by digoxin alone, or in combination with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem, or beta-adrenoceptor blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity like pindolol or xamoterol. 5. In view of the considerable risk of thromboembolism in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation anticoagulation or at least treatment with aspirin should be considered.

The value of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs for acute conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter to sinus rhythm

In a single-blind randomized study, the efficacy and safety of intravenous propafenone (2 mg/kg body weight per 10 min) versus flecainide (2 mg/kg per 10 min) were assessed in 50 patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter. Treatment was considered successful if sinus rhythm occurred within 1 h. Conversion to sinus was achieved in 11 (55%) of 20 patients with atrial fibrillation treated with propafenone and in 18 (90%) of 20 with atrial fibrillation treated with flecainide (p less than 0.02). If atrial fibrillation was present less than or equal to 24 h, conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved in 8 (57%) of 14 patients in the propafenone group and 13 (93%) of 14 in the flecainide group (p less than 0.05). Atrial flutter was converted in two (40%) of five patients treated with propafenone and in one (20%) of five with flecainide (p = NS). Mean time to conversion was 16 +/- 10 min in the propafenone group versus 18 +/- 13 min in the flecainide group (p = NS). QRS lengthening (83 +/- 15 to 99 +/- 20 ms) was observed only in the patients treated with flecainide (p less than 0.001). Patients successfully treated with propafenone showed significantly higher plasma levels than those whose arrhythmia did not convert to sinus rhythm. Transient adverse effects were more frequent in the flecainide group (40%) than in the propafenone group (8%) (p less than 0.01). In conclusion, at a dose of 2 mg/kg in 10 min, flecainide is more effective than propafenone for conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. However, considering the propafenone plasma levels and very few adverse effects, the dose or infusion rate, or both, used in the propafenone group may not have been sufficient to achieve an optimal effect. Neither drug seems very effective in patients with atrial flutter.

Efficacy and safety of quinidine therapy for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials

Because individual studies evaluating the role of quinidine in the maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion from chronic atrial fibrillation have involved relatively few patients, a meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed. Six trials published between 1970 and 1984 were selected by two blinded reviewers based on study design and statistical analysis. Data from these six trials involving 808 patients were pooled after testing for homogeneity of treatment effects across trials. Life table estimates of the percent of patients still in sinus rhythm at 3, 6, and 12 months after cardioversion were constructed for quinidine and control groups. The proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm in the quinidine group was 69%, 58%, and 50% at 3, 6, and 12 months postcardioversion respectively. The proportion of patients remaining in sinus rhythm in the control group was 45%, 33%, and 25% at the same time intervals. The pooled rate difference, or difference in proportion of patients in sinus rhythm between quinidine and control groups, was 24%, 23%, and 24% at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up (p less than 0.001 at all time intervals). The unadjusted total mortality rate in the quinidine-treated patients was 2.9% and in the control group was 0.8%. The odds of dying in the quinidine-treated group were approximately three times that of the control group ("typical" odds ratio = 2.98, p less than 0.05). Thus, quinidine treatment is more effective than no antiarrhythmic therapy in suppressing recurrences of atrial fibrillation but appears to be associated with increased total mortality.

Electrophysiologic effects and efficacy of cibenzoline on stimulation-induced atrial fibrillation and flutter and implications for treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

The effects of intravenous cibenzoline (1.5 mg/kg) on atrial vulnerability and electrophysiology were assessed in 25 patients with documented paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), in whom sustained (greater than 30 seconds) AF was induced by atrial stimulation with up to 2 extrastimuli and paced rates between 100 and 180 beats/min. In 7 patients AF persisted despite the application of cibenzoline, and in 8 patients the induction of sustained AF was prevented by cibenzoline. Intraatrial conduction time, flutter cycle length and shortest ventricular cycle length during AF were increased by cibenzoline (p less than or equal to 0.01). Sinus cycle length was decreased (p less than or equal to 0.05), whereas sinus node recovery time remained unchanged. The effective refractory period of the right atrium was not significantly affected. Eight patients with frequent episodes of paroxysmal AF received oral cibenzoline for control of paroxysmal AF irrespective of the efficacy of intravenous cibenzoline. Prevention of stimulation-induced AF predicted successful treatment of paroxysmal AF (p = 0.018). Cibenzoline could be effective in the treatment of atrial arrhythmias, and selection of an antiarrhythmic therapy for recurrent AF seems to be useful.

Therapy of refractory symptomatic atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: a staged care approach with new antiarrhythmic drugs

One hundred nine patients with recurrent episodes of symptomatic atrial fibrillation or flutter, or both, who had failed one to five previous antiarrhythmic drug trials were treated with propafenone and, subsequently, sotalol if atrial fibrillation recurred. The clinical profile of the study group was as follows: age 63 +/- 13 years, left atrial anteroposterior dimension 4.4 +/- 0.9 cm and left ventricular ejection fraction 57 +/- 14%. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation occurred in 56 patients (51%) and chronic atrial fibrillation occurred in 53 patients (49%). After loading and dose titration phases were completed, the maintenance doses of drugs were 450 to 900 mg/day for propafenone and 160 to 960 mg/day for sotalol. Life table estimates of the duration of freedom from atrial fibrillation were constructed for each drug trial. The percent of patients free of recurrent symptomatic arrhythmia at 6 months was 39% for propafenone and 50% for sotalol. The cumulative proportion of patients successfully treated with propafenone or sotalol, or both, by 6 months was 55% and remained relatively constant beyond that point. The incidence of intolerable side effects necessitating discontinuation of therapy ranged from 7% to 8%. Thus, despite previous unsuccessful drug trials, a substantial proportion of patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to conventional therapy can be treated successfully and safely with newer antiarrhythmic drugs. Treatment failures tend to occur early in the course of follow-up, permitting easy identification of candidates for alternative therapeutic approaches.

Effectiveness of intravenous propafenone for conversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter of recent onset

The efficacy of intravenous propafenone (2 mg/kg) was assessed in 83 consecutive patients: 68 with atrial fibrillation (AF) and 15 with atrial flutter lasting less than 15 days. Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 47 patients (57%), including 42 (62%) of those with AF and 5 (33%) of those with atrial flutter (p less than 0.05). The mean time to conversion was 29 +/- 24 minutes. The success rate was strongly affected by arrhythmia duration. Thus, conversion occurred in 40 patients (71%) among the 56 with arrhythmia lasting less than 48 hours but in 7 patients (26%) among the 27 with a longer lasting arrhythmia (p less than 0.0005). Left atrial size (determined echocardiographically in 56 patients) was significantly larger in nonconverters (49 +/- 12 vs 39 +/- 7 mm, p less than 0.0005). In nonconverters the mean ventricular rate decreased from 141 +/- 26 to 104 +/- 22 beats/min (p less than 0.0005). Except for reversible low output state in 3 patients already hemodynamically compromised, no significant side effects were observed. In conclusion, (1) intravenous propafenone allows a quick restoration of sinus rhythm in the majority of patients with AF of recent onset, whereas it seems less effective in atrial flutter; (2) its efficacy is influenced by the duration of the arrhythmia and by left atrial dimensions; (3) the drug allows control of ventricular rate; and (4) its use seems to be safe except in patients with severe cardiac failure.

Usefulness of propafenone for recurrent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

To evaluate the efficacy of propafenone for suppression of recurrent paroxysmal symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), patients with frequent episodes of AF entered an open-label, dose-ranging study to determine the maximal tolerated dose of propafenone and were subsequently randomized to alternate between propafenone and placebo every month for 4 months. Patients recorded each episode of AF in a diary and recorded a simultaneous electrocardiographic rhythm strip by means of a transtelephonic recorder and transmitter to validate the presence of AF. Eighteen patients were eligible for study. During dose ranging, 4 patients withdrew due to inadequate drug efficacy or poor compliance, 2 withdrew due to intolerable side effects and 1 died. The mean dose of propafenone at the end of dose ranging was 644 +/- 189 mg/day. During the crossover study, the percentage of days with an attack of AF was significantly reduced by propafenone compared with placebo (27 +/- 34 vs 51 +/- 34%, p less than 0.01). The rate of early crossover or withdrawal from the crossover study was 13.6% with propafenone and 45% with placebo (p = 0.056). Five patients went on to receive long-term propafenone and 4 continued treatment with suppression of AF for 12 to 21 months. During the crossover study there were 29 reported minor side effects with propafenone and 11 with placebo.

Propafenone: a novel type Ic antiarrhythmic agent

Propafenone is an investigational type Ic anti-arrhythmic agent that markedly slows conduction velocity in all cardiac tissues. Propafenone also possesses weak beta- and calcium-channel blocking properties. The bioavailability of propafenone is dose-dependent. Hepatic metabolism of this agent is polymorphic and appears to correlate with the ability of the liver to oxidize debrisoquin sulfate. Propafenone is effective in suppressing spontaneous ventricular ectopy; however, the drug may be less effective in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation when evaluated using programmed stimulation. Propafenone is also useful in the treatment of supraventricular tachycardias including atrioventricular (AV) nodal reentrant tachycardia, AV reentrant tachycardia associated with the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, and atrial fibrillation. Adverse reactions seen with propafenone affect the gastrointestinal, central nervous, and cardiovascular systems. Comparative studies with currently available type Ic agents are needed to better define propafenone's place in therapy.

Long-term oral propafenone therapy for suppression of refractory symptomatic atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

Sixty patients who had recurrent episodes of symptomatic atrial fibrillation or flutter, or both, and who had failed one to five prior drug trials were treated with open label oral propafenone hydrochloride. On a mean maximal tolerated dose of 795 +/- 180 mg/day, actuarial estimates of the percent of individuals free of recurrences of symptomatic atrial fibrillation/flutter during propafenone treatment were: 1 month, 54%; 3 months, 44% and 6 months, 40%. No individual baseline characteristic achieved statistical significance as a correlate of poor response to propafenone. Drug-related adverse reactions were reported in 22% of patients but were severe enough to require termination of propafenone in only 5%. Thus, oral propafenone is a useful and well tolerated drug for long-term suppression of symptomatic recurrences of atrial fibrillation/flutter despite a history of unresponsiveness to prior antiarrhythmic drug treatment.