Prevention of symptomatic recurrences of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients initially tolerating antiarrhythmic therapy. A multicenter, double-blind, crossover study of flecainide and placebo with transtelephonic monitoring. Flecainide Supraventricular Tachycardia Study Group

Differentiating Left Atrial Pressure Responses in Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Diagnosing Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Managing Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Increased left atrial pressure (LAP) contributes to dyspnea and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in baseline LAP and LAP response to rapid pacing between paroxysmal and persistent AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This observational study prospectively enrolled 1369 participants who underwent AF catheter ablation, excluding those with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. H2FPEF score was calculated by echocardiography and baseline characteristics. Patients underwent LAP measurements during AF, sinus rhythm, and heart rates of 90, 100, 110, and 120 beats per minute (bpm), induced by right atrial pacing and isoproterenol. The baseline LAP-peak in the persistent AF group consistently exceeded that in the paroxysmal AF (PAF) group across each H2FPEF score subgroup (all P<0.05). LAP-peak increased with pacing (19.5 to 22.5 mm Hg) but decreased with isoproterenol (20.4 to 18.4 mm Hg). Under pacing, patients with PAF exhibited a significantly lower LAP-peak (90 bpm) than those with persistent AF (17.7±8.2 versus 21.1±9.3 mm Hg, P<0.001). However, there was no difference in LAP-peak (120 bpm) between the 2 groups (22.1±8.1 versus 22.9±8.4 mm Hg, P=0.056) because the LAP-peak significantly increased with heart rate in the group with PAF.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PAF exhibited lower baseline LAP with greater increases during rapid pacing compared with individuals with persistent AF, indicating a need to revise the H2FPEF score for distinguishing PAF from persistent AF and emphasizing the importance of rate and rhythm control in PAF for symptom control.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02138695.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Ablation versus anti-arrhythmic therapy for reducing all hospital episodes from recurrent atrial fibrillation: a prospective, randomized, multi-centre, open label trial

AIMS

There is rising healthcare utilization related to the increasing incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) worldwide. Simplifying therapy and reducing hospital episodes would be a valuable development. The efficacy of a streamlined AF ablation approach was compared to drug therapy and a conventional catheter ablation technique for symptom control in paroxysmal AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We recruited 321 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF to a prospective randomized, multi-centre, open label trial at 13 UK hospitals. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to cryo-balloon ablation without electrical mapping with patients discharged same day [Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Therapy for Reducing All Hospital Episodes from Recurrent (AVATAR) protocol]; optimization of drug therapy; or cryo-balloon ablation with confirmation of pulmonary vein isolation and overnight hospitalization. The primary endpoint was time to any hospital episode related to treatment for atrial arrhythmia. Secondary endpoints included complications of treatment and quality-of-life measures. The hazard ratio (HR) for a primary endpoint event occurring when comparing AVATAR protocol arm to drug therapy was 0.156 (95% CI, 0.097-0.250; P < 0.0001 by Cox regression). Twenty-three patients (21%) recorded an endpoint event in the AVATAR arm compared to 76 patients (74%) within the drug therapy arm. Comparing AVATAR and conventional ablation arms resulted in a non-significant HR of 1.173 (95% CI, 0.639-2.154; P = 0.61 by Cox regression) with 23 patients (21%) and 19 patients (18%), respectively, recording primary endpoint events (P = 0.61 by log-rank test).

CONCLUSION

The AVATAR protocol was superior to drug therapy for avoiding hospital episodes related to AF treatment, but conventional cryoablation was not superior to the AVATAR protocol. This could have wide-ranging implications on how demand for AF symptom control is met.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02459574.

How does flecainide impact RyR2 channel function?

Flecainide, a cardiac class 1C blocker of the surface membrane sodium channel (NaV1.5), has also been reported to reduce cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2)-mediated sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca2+ release. It has been introduced as a clinical antiarrhythmic agent for catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), a condition most commonly associated with gain-of-function RyR2 mutations. Current debate concerns both cellular mechanisms of its antiarrhythmic action and molecular mechanisms of its RyR2 actions. At the cellular level, it targets NaV1.5, RyR2, Na+/Ca2+ exchange (NCX), and additional proteins involved in excitation-contraction (EC) coupling and potentially contribute to the CPVT phenotype. This Viewpoint primarily addresses the various direct molecular actions of flecainide on isolated RyR2 channels in artificial lipid bilayers. Such studies demonstrate different, multifarious, flecainide binding sites on RyR2, with voltage-dependent binding in the channel pore or voltage-independent binding at distant peripheral sites. In contrast to its single NaV1.5 pore binding site, flecainide may bind to at least four separate inhibitory sites on RyR2 and one activation site. None of these binding sites have been specifically located in the linear RyR2 sequence or high-resolution structure. Furthermore, it is not clear which of the inhibitory sites contribute to flecainide's reduction of spontaneous Ca2+ release in cellular studies. A confounding observation is that flecainide binding to voltage-dependent inhibition sites reduces cation fluxes in a direction opposite to physiological Ca2+ flow from SR lumen to cytosol. This may suggest that, rather than directly blocking Ca2+ efflux, flecainide can reduce Ca2+ efflux by blocking counter currents through the pore which otherwise limit SR membrane potential change during systolic Ca2+ efflux. In summary, the antiarrhythmic effects of flecainide in CPVT seem to involve multiple components of EC coupling and multiple actions on RyR2. Their clarification may identify novel specific drug targets and facilitate flecainide's clinical utilization in CPVT.

Absent or Mild Coronary Calcium Predicts Low-Risk Stress Test Results and Outcomes in Patients Considered for Flecainide Therapy

BACKGROUND

Flecainide is a useful antiarrhythmic for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, because of ventricular proarrhythmia risk, a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or coronary artery disease (CAD) is a flecainide exclusion, and stress testing is used to exclude ischemia. We assessed whether absent/mild coronary artery calcium (CAC) can supplement or avoid the need for stress testing.

METHODS

We assessed ischemic burden using regadenoson Rb-82 PET/CT in 1372 AF patients ≥50 years old without symptoms or signs of clinical CAD. CAC was determined qualitatively by low dose attenuation computed tomography (CT) (n = 816) or by quantitative CT (n = 556). Ischemic burden and clinical outcomes were compared by CAC burden.

RESULTS

Patients with CAC absent or mild (n = 766, 57.2%) were younger, more frequently female, and had higher BMI but lower rates of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Average ischemic burden was lower in CAC-absent/mild patients, and CAC-absent/mild patients showed greater coronary flow reserve, had fewer referrals for coronary angiography, and less often had obstructive CAD. Revascularization at 90 days was lower, and the rate of longer-term major adverse cardiovascular events was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

An easily administered, inexpensive, low radiation CAC scan can identify a subset of flecainide candidates with a low ischemic burden on PET stress testing that rarely needs coronary angiography/intervention and has favorable outcomes. Absent or mild CAC-burden combined with other clinical information may avoid or complement routine stress testing. However, additional, ideally randomized and multicenter trials are indicated to confirm these findings before replacing stress testing with CAC screening in selecting patients for flecainide therapy in clinical practice.

Use of Flecainide in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: An Analysis of Its Safety in Both Nonobstructive and Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Flecainide is a class IC antiarrhythmic drug that is contraindicated in patients who have a history of myocardial infarction, but its effect on mortality and risk of proarrhythmia in patients with stable obstructive and nonobstructive epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the safety of flecainide administration in patients who had angiographic evidence of either no or minimal CAD versus nonobstructive CAD, and those who underwent nuclear stress testing with perfusion defects versus those without perfusion defects.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 348 patients who were treated with flecainide for at least 1 year duration and underwent evaluation for CAD with coronary angiography or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) stress testing within 3 months of initiating flecainide. We compared overall mortality and proarrhythmia between varying levels of CAD and perfusion defects.

RESULTS

There was a similar 10-year survival between those with no or minimal CAD, nonobstructive CAD, and obstructive CAD (p = 0.6). Additionally, there was no difference in arrhythmia burden, including sustained ventricular tachycardias or frequent premature ventricular contractions (> 5% daily burden; p = 0.25). There was also no increase in mortality among those who had reversible perfusion defects >0% compared with those without, among subjects who underwent MPI (p = 0.14). On subgroup analysis, there was no increased risk in all-cause mortality with any specific coronary artery involvement, or with obstructive multivessel CAD (p = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

Flecainide use is not associated with an increase in either all-cause mortality or ventricular arrhythmias in low-risk patients with stable nonobstructive CAD.

Flecainide-Induced Atrial Flutter With 1:1 Conduction Complicated by Ventricular Fibrillation After Electrical Cardioversion

Flecainide, a widely prescribed class IC agent used to treat atrial arrhythmias, can in rare cases cause 1:1 atrial flutter with rapid conduction. We describe the case of a 59-year-old man who was on a maintenance regimen of flecainide for refractory atrial fibrillation. When 1:1 atrial flutter with rapid conduction developed, emergency medical technicians attempted synchronized cardioversion, which caused ventricular fibrillation necessitating defibrillation. The patient ultimately underwent radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation to resolve his symptomatic atrial flutter. We discuss the atrial proarrhythmic effects of flecainide and how to mitigate complications in high-risk patients.

Revisiting Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Reviewing Lessons Learned and Redefining Therapeutic Paradigms

Since the clinical use of digitalis as the first pharmacological therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) 235 years ago in 1785, antiarrhythmic drug therapy has advanced considerably and become a cornerstone of AF clinical management. Yet, a preventive or curative panacea for sustained AF does not exist despite the rise of AF global prevalence to epidemiological proportions. While multiple elevated risk factors for AF have been established, the natural history and etiology of AF remain incompletely understood. In the present article, the first section selectively highlights some disappointing shortcomings and current efforts in antiarrhythmic drug therapy to uncover reasons why AF is such a clinical challenge. The second section discusses some modern takes on the natural history of AF as a relentless, progressive fibro-inflammatory "atriomyopathy." The final section emphasizes the need to redefine therapeutic strategies on par with new insights of AF pathophysiology.

Use of Flecainide for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia and is associated with substantial morbidity and impairment of quality of life. Restoration and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm is a desirable goal for many patients with AF; however, this strategy is limited by the relatively small number of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) available for AF rhythm control. Although it is recommended in current medical guidelines as first-line therapy for patients without structural heart disease, the use of flecainide has been curtailed since the completion of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. In clinical trials and real-world use, flecainide has proven to be more effective than other AADs for the acute termination of recent onset AF. Flecainide is also moderately effective and, with the exception of amiodarone, equivalent to other AADs for the chronic suppression of paroxysmal and persistent AF. In patients without structural heart disease, flecainide has been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated relative to other AADs. Despite this favorable profile, flecainide is underutilized, likely due to a perceived risk of ventricular proarrhythmia, a concern that has not been borne out in patients without underlying structural heart disease. Guidelines for administration and use of flecainide are summarized in this review.

Revisiting an Underrecognized Strategy for Rhythm Management: Hybrid Therapy for Patients who Convert from Atrial Fibrillation to Flutter on Antiarrhythmic Drugs

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation. In a unique subset of patients, AF can convert to atrial flutter (AFL) after the initiation of an AAD. It has previously been shown that, in this subset of patients, cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation followed by the continuation of the AAD regimen has an unusually high rate of successfully maintaining sinus rhythm. This is an underrecognized approach toward rhythm management in such patients. However, the reason(s) for such a high degree of efficacy with this hybrid therapeutic approach are unclear. We suggest that conversion from AF to AFL selects for a group of patients in whom AF is particularly responsive to the effects of the AAD. Since CTI ablation is essentially curative of AFL, the combination of both techniques results in a high efficacy of sinus rhythm maintenance. Further investigation is required to confirm these hypotheses.

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.

Multiple targets for flecainide action: implications for cardiac arrhythmogenesis

Flecainide suppresses cardiac tachyarrhythmias including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia and arrhythmic long QT syndromes (LQTS), as well as the Ca2+ -mediated, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT). However, flecainide can also exert pro-arrhythmic effects most notably following myocardial infarction and when used to diagnose Brugada syndrome (BrS). These divergent actions result from its physiological and pharmacological actions at multiple, interacting levels of cellular organization. These were studied in murine genetic models with modified Nav channel or intracellular ryanodine receptor (RyR2)-Ca2+ channel function. Flecainide accesses its transmembrane Nav 1.5 channel binding site during activated, open, states producing a use-dependent antagonism. Closing either activation or inactivation gates traps flecainide within the pore. An early peak INa related to activation of Nav channels followed by rapid de-activation, drives action potential (AP) upstrokes and their propagation. This is diminished in pro-arrhythmic conditions reflecting loss of function of Nav 1.5 channels, such as BrS, accordingly exacerbated by flecainide challenge. Contrastingly, pro-arrhythmic effects attributed to prolonged AP recovery by abnormal late INaL following gain-of-function modifications of Nav 1.5 channels in LQTS3 are reduced by flecainide. Anti-arrhythmic effects of flecainide that reduce triggering in CPVT models mediated by sarcoplasmic reticular Ca2+ release could arise from its primary actions on Nav channels indirectly decreasing [Ca2+ ]i through a reduced [Na+ ]i and/or direct open-state RyR2-Ca2+ channel antagonism. The consequent [Ca2+ ]i alterations could also modify AP propagation velocity and therefore arrhythmic substrate through its actions on Nav 1.5 channel function. This is consistent with the paradoxical differences between flecainide actions upon Na+ currents, AP conduction and arrhythmogenesis under circumstances of normal and increased RyR2 function.

LINKED ARTICLES

This article is part of a themed section on Spotlight on Small Molecules in Cardiovascular Diseases. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v175.8/issuetoc.

Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation recurrences and quality of life in symptomatic patients: A crossover study of flecainide and pilsicainide

Background

The therapeutic goals of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients are to reduce symptoms and prevent severe complications associated with AF. This study compared the efficacy of flecainide versus pilsicainide in reducing the frequency of AF and improving quality of life (QOL) in symptomatic paroxysmal AF patients without structural heart disease.

Methods

The Atrial Fibrillation and Quality Of Life (AF-QOL) study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label crossover study that compared flecainide and pilsicainide as antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Patients were randomized to receive 3 months of treatment with flecainide twice daily or pilsicainide 3 times daily. Each treatment consisted of a dose-finding phase (weeks 1–4) and an efficacy phase (weeks 5–12). Forty-three patients completed the trial. The main outcome was the number of days with documented AF episodes using a patient-operated electrocardiogram. QOL questionnaires (SF-36 and AF-specific QOL scores) were also completed.

Results

The median (range) AF frequencies (days/8 weeks) were 2 (0–50) in the flecainide treatment group and 1 (0–54) in the pilsicainide treatment group (no significant between-group difference). No significant difference in the first recurrence of AF during the efficacy phase was noted between flecainide and pilsicainide treatments. The frequency and severity scores of AF-related symptoms improved from baseline to the end of the treatment periods. No significant differences in SF-36 or AF-related QOL scores were noted between the treatment groups.

Conclusions

This study found no difference in AF frequency or QOL between symptomatic paroxysmal AF patients who received flecainide or pilsicainide.

Proarrhythmic Effects Of Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Case Study Of Flecainide Induced Ventricular Arrhythmias During Treatment Of Atrial Fibrillation

PURPOSE

Flecainide is a class 1C antiarrhythmic drug especially used for the management of supraventricular arrhythmia. Flecainide also has a recognized proarrhythmic effect in patients treated for ventricular tachycardia. It is used to treat a variety of cardiac arrhythmias including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia. Flecainide has local anesthetic effects and belongs to the class 1C AADs that block sodium channels, thereby slowing conduction through the heart. It selectively increases anterograde and retrograde accessory pathway refractoriness. The action of flecainide in the heart prolongs the PR interval and widens the QRS complex. The proarrhythmic effects however noted are not widely reported.

METHOD

We report a case of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with structurally normal heart who was treated with oral Flecainide. There were no adverse events and no QTc prolongation was noted on ECG. Despite subjective improvement a repeat Holter detected him to have multiple short non sustained ventricular arrhythmias.

RESULTS

Development of ventricular arrhythmias, salvos and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia after a month of initiation of oral flecainide detected by 24 hours ECG Holter lead to discontinuation of flecainide and subsequent early electrophysiological studies and successful ablation.

CONCLUSION

Initiation of oral Flecainide in a case of atrial fibrillation with subjective improvement and regular ECG monitoring, no QTc prolongation can still lead to development of dangerous ventricular arrhythmias. A cautious approach and thorough investigations and follow up are recommended.

Narrow therapeutic index drugs: a clinical pharmacological consideration to flecainide

PURPOSE

The therapeutic index (TI) is the range of doses at which a medication is effective without unacceptable adverse events. Drugs with a narrow TI (NTIDs) have a narrow window between their effective doses and those at which they produce adverse toxic effects. Generic drugs may be substituted for brand-name drugs provided that they meet the recommended bioequivalence (BE) limits. However, an appropriate range of BE for NTIDs is essential to define due to the potential for ineffectiveness or adverse events. Flecainide is an antiarrhythmic agent that has the potential to be considered an NTID. This review aims to evaluate the literature surrounding guidelines on generic substitution for NTIDs and to evaluate the evidence for flecainide to be considered an NTID.

METHODS

A review of recommendations from various regulatory authorities regarding BE and NTIDs, and publications regarding the NTID characteristics of flecainide, was carried out.

RESULTS

Regulatory authorities generally recommend reduced BE limits for NTIDs. Some, but not all, regulatory authorities specify flecainide as an NTID. The literature review demonstrated that flecainide displays NTID characteristics including a steep drug dose-response relationship for safety and efficacy, a need for therapeutic drug monitoring of pharmacokinetic (PK) or pharmacodynamics measures and intra-subject variability in its PK properties.

CONCLUSIONS

There is much evidence for flecainide to be considered an NTID based on both preclinical and clinical data. A clear understanding of the potential of proarrhythmic effects or lack of efficacy, careful patient selection and regular monitoring are essential for the safe and rational administration of flecainide.

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.

Flecainide: Current status and perspectives in arrhythmia management

Flecainide acetate is a class IC antiarrhythmic agent and its clinical efficacy has been confirmed by the results of several clinical trials. Nowadays, flecainide is recommended as one of the first line therapies for pharmacological conversion as well as maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and/or supraventricular tachycardias. Based on the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial study results, flecainide is not recommended in patients with structural heart disease due to high proarrhythmic risk. Recent data support the role of flecainide in preventing ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia associated both with ryanodine receptor and calsequestrin mutations. We herein review the current clinical data related to flecainide use in clinical practice and some concerns about its role in the management of patients with coronary artery disease.

Comparison between ivabradine and low-dose digoxin in the therapy of diastolic heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function

Multicenter trials have demonstrated that in patients with sinus rhythm ivabradine is effective in the therapy of ischemic heart disease and of impaired left ventricular systolic function. Ivabradine is ineffective in atrial fibrillation. Many patients with symptomatic heart failure have diastolic dysfunction with preserved left ventricular systolic function, and many have asymptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Ivabradine is not indicated in these conditions, but it happens that it is erroneously used. Digoxin is now considered an outdated and potentially dangerous drug and while effective in the mentioned conditions, is rarely used. The aim of the study was to compare the therapeutic effects of ivabradine in diastolic heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function. Patients were assigned to ivabradine or digoxin according to a randomization cross-over design. Data were single-blind analyzed. The analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat method. Forty-two coronary patients were selected. In spite of maximally tolerated therapy with renin-antagonists, diuretics and β-blockers, they had congestive diastolic heart failure with preserved systolic function. Both ivabradine and digoxin had positive effects on dyspnea, Nterminal natriuretic peptide, heart rate, duration of 6-min. walk-test and signs of diastolic dysfunction, but digoxin was high-statistically more effective. Side-effects were irrelevant. Data were obtained in a single-center and from 42 patients with ischemic etiology of heart failure. The number of patients is small and does not allow assessing mortality. In coronary patients with symptomatic diastolic heart failure with preserved systolic function low-dose digoxin was significantly more effective than ivabradine and is much cheaper. One should be more critical about ivabradine and low-dose digoxin in diastolic heart failure. To avoid possible negative effects on the cardiac function and a severe reduction of the cardiac output the resting heart rate should not be decreased to <65 beats/min.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure in the elderly

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common clinical problem in elderly patients and especially in those with heart failure (HF). It is a major risk factor for serious cardiovascular events, such as stroke, HF and premature death. Both the prevalence and incidence of AF increase with age and its prevalence in the United States are estimated at more than 2.2 million, with nearly 75% of patients aged >65 years. Aging-related atrial remodeling with fibrosis, dilation and mitochondrial DNA mutations predispose elderly patients to AF. Current management options for AF, including rate control and anticoagulation therapy, can be successfully applied to the elderly population. New antiarrhythmic and anticoagulation medications such as dronedarone and dabigatran, respectively, can impact the approach to therapy in the elderly. Non-pharmacological options such as catheter-based ablation have also gained prominence and have been incorporated into the guidelines for management of AF. However, more trials in the elderly and very elderly segments are needed to clarify the safety and long-term efficacy of the new treatment options.

Comparison of the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs flecainide and verapamil on fKv1.4ΔN channel currents in Xenopus oocytes

AIM

To study the effects of Na(+) channel blocker flecainide and L-type Ca(2+) channel antagonist verapamil on the voltage-gated fKv1.4ΔN channel, an N-terminal-deleted mutant of the ferret Kv1.4 K(+) channel.

METHODS

fKv1.4ΔN channels were stably expressed in Xenopus oocytes. The K(+) currents were recorded using a two-electrode voltage-clamp technique. The drugs were administered through superfusion.

RESULTS

fKv1.4ΔN currents displayed slow inactivation, with a half-inactivation potential of -41.74 mV and a slow recovery from inactivation (τ=1.90 s at -90 mV). Flecainide and verapamil blocked the currents with IC(50) values of 512.29 ± 56.92 and 260.71 ± 18.50 μmol/L, respectively. The blocking action of the drugs showed opposite voltage-dependence: it was enhanced with depolarization for flecainide, and was attenuated with depolarization for verapamil. Both the drugs exerted state-dependent blockade on fKv1.4ΔN currents, but verapamil showed a stronger use-dependent blockage compared with flecainide. Flecainide accelerated the C-type inactivation rate without affecting the recovery kinetics and the steady-state activation. Verapamil also accelerated the inactivation kinetics of the currents, but unlike flecainide, it affected both the recovery and the steady-state activation, causing slower recovery of fKv1.4ΔN channel and a depolarizing shift of the steady-state activation curve.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that widely used antiarrhythmic drugs flecainide and verapamil substantially inhibit fKv1.4ΔN channels expressed in Xenopus oocytes by binding to the open state of the channels. Therefore, caution should be taken when these drugs are administered in combination with K(+) channel blockers to treat arrhythmia.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for the maintenance of sinus rhythm: risks and benefits

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia seen in clinical practice, and its complications impose a significant economic burden. The development of more effective agents to manage patients with AF is essential. While clinical trials show no major differences in outcomes between rate and rhythm control strategies, some patients with AF require treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm, reduce symptoms, improve exercise tolerance, and improve quality of life. Currently available AADs, while effective, have limitations including limited efficacy, adverse events, toxicity, and proarrhythmic potential. The 6 most commonly used AADs (amiodarone, disopyramide, dofetilide [USA but not Europe], flecainide, propafenone, sotalol) have proarrhythmic effects (fewer with amiodarone). Amiodarone is the most effective AAD, but its safety profile limits its usefulness. Recent advances in AAD therapy include dronedarone and vernakalant. Dronedarone, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Authority and others, has been proven efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm and reducing the incidence of hospitalization due to cardiovascular events or death in patients with AF. The intravenous formulation of vernakalant is approved in the European Union, Iceland, and Norway. Oral vernakalant is currently undergoing evaluation for preventing AF recurrence and appears to be effective with an acceptable safety profile. Treatment should be individualized to the patient with consideration of pharmacologic risks and benefits according to AF management guidelines. Accumulating efficacy and safety data for new and emerging AADs holds promise for improved AF management and outcomes.

Safety of flecainide

Flecainide is a class Ic antiarrhythmic agent that has an important role as part of rhythm control strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Early clinical data on the use of flecainide showed an increase in arrhythmias and mortality compared with placebo in patients with a previous myocardial infarction and asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. These findings only apply to a specific group of patients with left ventricular dysfunction and ischaemic heart disease, but had a negative impact on the use of class Ic antiarrhythmics across all indications and patient groups. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available safety data for flecainide in the literature and to assess its current use in patients with AF. Current European guidelines now recommend the use of flecainide in carefully selected groups of patients with AF who do not have structural heart disease. This includes for the cardioversion of recent-onset AF, pretreatment prior to direct current cardioversion, out-of-hospital acute oral therapy ('pill-in-the-pocket' approach) and for the ongoing maintenance of sinus rhythm. Potential cardiac adverse effects of flecainide include proarrhythmia, conduction abnormalities and negative inotropic effects. Dizziness is the most frequent non-cardiac side effect, followed by blurred vision and difficulty focusing; these are almost all mild, transient and tolerable. Data from recent clinical trials in patients with supraventricular arrhythmias suggest that flecainide has a good tolerability profile in groups of appropriately selected patients. Caution is required when using flecainide in patients with renal dysfunction, and there are a number of drug interactions, but these are well documented and manageable. Overall, flecainide is a good choice for the pharmacological management of AF. It has a good safety record and low incidence of adverse effects, rare end-organ toxicity and a low risk of ventricular proarrhythmia. To ensure that the benefits of treatment outweigh any potential risks, careful patient selection and monitoring is required.

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.

The safety of flecainide treatment of atrial fibrillation: long-term incidence of sudden cardiac death and proarrhythmic events

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of long-term treatment with flecainide in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly with regard to sudden cardiac death (SCD) and proarrhythmic events.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study.

SETTING

Single-centre study at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden. Subjects.  A total of 112 patients with paroxysmal (51%) or persistent (49%) AF (mean age 60 ± 11 years) were included after identifying all patients with AF who initiated oral flecainide treatment (mean dose 203 ± 43 mg per day) between 1998 and 2006. Standard exclusion/inclusion criteria for flecainide were used, and flecainide treatment was usually combined with an atrioventricular-blocking agent (89%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Death was classified as sudden or nonsudden according to standard definitions. Proarrhythmia was defined as cardiac syncope or life-threatening arrhythmia.

RESULTS

Eight deaths were reported during a mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 2.4 years. Compared to the general population, the standardized mortality ratios were 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-3.09) for all-cause mortality and 4.16 (95% CI 1.53-9.06) for death from cardiovascular disease. Three deaths were classified as SCDs. Proarrhythmic events occurred in six patients (two each with wide QRS tachycardia, 1 : 1 conducted atrial flutter and syncope during exercise).

CONCLUSION

We found an increased incidence of SCD or proarrhythmic events in this real-world study of flecainide used for the treatment of AF. The findings suggest that further investigation into the safety of flecainide for the treatment of patients with AF is warranted.

Targeting ryanodine receptors for anti-arrhythmic therapy

Antiarrhythmic drugs are a group of pharmaceuticals that suppress or prevent abnormal heart rhythms, which are often associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Current antiarrhythmic drugs that typically target plasma membrane ion channels have limited clinical success and in some cases have been described as being pro-arrhythmic. However, recent studies suggest that pathological release of calcium (Ca(2+)) from the sarcoplasmic reticulum via cardiac ryanodine receptors (RyR2) could represent a promising target for antiarrhythmic therapy. Diastolic SR Ca(2+) release has been linked to arrhythmogenesis in both the inherited arrhythmia syndrome 'catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia' and acquired forms of heart disease (eg, atrial fibrillation, heart failure). Several classes of pharmaceuticals have been shown to reduce abnormal RyR2 activity and may confer protection against triggered arrhythmias through reduction of SR Ca(2+) leak. In this review, we will evaluate the current pharmacological methods for stabilizing RyR2 and suggest treatment modalities based on current evidence of molecular mechanisms.

Rhythm control for management of patients with atrial fibrillation: balancing the use of antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation

Antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy may be beneficial for patients with symptoms attributable to atrial fibrillation despite adequate rate control. The limited long-term efficacy of AAD and the relatively large proportion of patients discontinuing therapy because of side effects led to the development of nonpharmacological therapies to achieve rhythm control. Pressing questions remain about the effect of ablation therapy on long-term patient outcomes. Based on recent clinical trials and meta-analyses, ablation appears more effective and possibly safer than AAD for long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm in selected patients, but the evidence is insufficient to recommend ablation in preference to drug therapy as the first AAD therapy for the majority of patients in whom a rhythm control strategy is justified. Herein, we review the most current evidence supporting the use of AAD and catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Review of contemporary antiarrhythmic drug therapy for maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disturbance seen in clinical practice, and its prevalence and incidence are rising rapidly as the population ages with its attendant complications. Management of AF involves anticoagulation, and fortunately new drugs for long-term anticoagulation are now available. Maintenance of sinus rhythm, though intuitively better than rate control strategy, has not been shown to offer mortality benefit. Still, maintenance of sinus rhythm is considered an appropriate therapeutic strategy when symptoms are not adequately controlled with rate control. Though significant advances have been made in ablation techniques for AF, pharmacological therapy is still the first line of treatment for rate control and maintenance of sinus rhythm, given ease of use, noninvasive nature, and limited experience with catheter-based ablation techniques. Class IC and III agents (Vaughan Williams classification) form the backbone for pharmacological maintenance of sinus rhythm. Dronedarone, a recently approved class III agent, provides a significant advance because of its relatively safe side effect profile. Currently drugs with selective atrial channels blocking properties, like Vernakalant, are being tested in trials and may provide an opportunity to maintain sinus rhythm with limited toxicity. Large trials are also being conducted to better define the efficacy of catheter-based ablation strategy as first-line treatment. Here, we review the current status of commonly used antiarrhythmic medications for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in AF.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Although stroke prevention is the only way to improve prognosis, antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are of primary importance both in the conversion to sinus rhythm and in the long-term control of rhythm and rate.

AREAS COVERED

We searched the Cochrane Library and Medline Database for articles published in English concerning efficacy and safety of AADs in AF. Particular attention was paid to the recently published European Society of Cardiology guidelines. This review provides an overview of the currently available drugs used in AF, with a particular emphasis on their comparative efficacy and safety in different kind of patients. Recent important findings, and advantages and disadvantages of recently approved drugs such as vernakalant and dronedarone, are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

AADs remain fundamental in the acute and long-term management of AF, to control symptoms and to reduce the negative impact of the arrhythmia on QoL. The choice of a rate- over rhythm-control strategy should be individualized and based on accurate evaluation of patient medical history and symptoms. New agents will contribute to improve treatment efficacy together with the guarantee of better safety profiles.

Twenty-five years in the making: flecainide is safe and effective for the management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in clinical practise and its prevalence is increasing. Over the last 25 years, flecainide has been used extensively worldwide, and its capacity to reduce AF symptoms and provide long-term restoration of sinus rhythm (SR) has been well documented. The increased mortality seen in patients treated with flecainide in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) study, published in 1991, still deters many clinicians from using flecainide, denying many new AF patients a valuable treatment option. There is now a body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that flecainide has a favourable safety profile in AF patients without significant left ventricular disease or coronary heart disease. As a result of this evidence, flecainide is now recommended as one of the first-line treatment options for restoring and maintaining SR in patients with AF under current treatment guidelines. The objective of this article is to review the literature pertaining to the pharmacological characteristics, safety and efficacy of flecainide, and to place this drug in the context of current therapeutic management strategies for AF.

[Class I antiarrhythmic drugs: mechanisms, contraindications, and current indications]

Class I antiarrhythmic drugs are sodium channel inhibitors that act by slowing myocardial conduction and, thus, interrupting or preventing reentrant arrhythmia. Due to proarrhythmic effects and the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia, class I antiarrhythmics should not be administered in patients with structural heart disease. Nevertheless, there remains a broad spectrum of arrhythmias--among the most common being atrial fibrillation--that can successfully be treated with class I antiarrhythmic drugs. This review gives an overview on the classification, antiarrhythmic mechanisms, indications, side effects, and application modes of class I antiarrhythmic drugs.

Impact of the control of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on health-related quality of life

AIMS

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) consider the related symptoms disruptive to their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the control of symptomatic paroxysmal AF (PAF) on QoL.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with symptomatic PAF were treated for 48 weeks with open-label flecainide acetate controlled release (Flec CR). Quality of life was assessed by SF-36 and Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale scores at baseline, Week 12 (W12), W24, and W48. Of the 229 treated patients, 217 were analysed for QoL (123 with controlled and 94 with uncontrolled symptomatic PAF at inclusion). The controlled group had a similar or better QoL (SF-36) at baseline compared with a reference population (significantly better for: physical functioning, bodily pain, and physical component). The uncontrolled group had an inferior QoL (significantly worse for: role physical, general health, vitality, role emotional, social functioning, mental health, and mental component). When treated with Flec CR, the controlled group baseline QoL scores were maintained and the uncontrolled group scores were improved to a level comparable to the controlled group scores. Safety findings reflect the known clinical safety profile of flecainide acetate.

CONCLUSION

In this study, patients with uncontrolled symptomatic PAF at baseline had an inferior QoL to those with controlled symptomatic PAF. Following treatment with controlled-release flecainide acetate, their QoL improved to a level comparable to controlled patients.

[Rate versus rhythm control with and without heart failure]

Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure are frequently associated with complex interactions. Patients with both diseases bear a sophisticated therapeutic challenge for the attending physician. The approach to treat atrial fibrillation differs for patients with and without heart failure in several aspects. Basic requirements are the treatment of the underlying diseases and prophylaxis of thromboembolic complications. Rate and rhythm control are the two main therapeutic strategies for atrial fibrillation according to the current guidelines. Large trials including the recently published AF-CHF study (Atrial Fibrillation - Congestive Heart Failure) failed to demonstrate a difference in mortality for both strategies. Thus, the therapeutic decision is mainly based on the patient's symptoms to improve quality of life. Rate control should be applied to asymptomatic patients or if rhythm control has already failed. If beta-blockers and digoxin have failed to control heart rate, His ablation with pacemaker implantation can be considered. In patients without heart disease, class I antiarrhythmic drugs and, in case of ineffectiveness, amiodarone or catheter ablation are recommended for rhythm control. First data concerning catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in heart failure are promising and randomized studies are on the way. Rhythm control remains first-line therapy in recent-onset or highly symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation patients with and without heart failure.

[Pharmaceutical treatment of atrial fibrillation]

Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common long-lasting arrhythmias of the heart. It leads to an increase in morbidity and a substantial reduction in quality of life in most patients. Therefore, an early and adequate therapy strategy and prevention of comorbidities of atrial fibrillation are demanding. There is no controversy about the pharmaceutical treatment as the first choice and gold standard in atrial fibrillation patients. As there is no evidence that frequency control is superior to rhythm control or vice versa, therapy strategies should depend on the clinical status and comorbidities of the individual patient. However, adequate anticoagulation for prevention of thromboembolism should be performed in every patient, even after conversion of atrial fibrillation into sinus rhythm.

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.

Efficacy of Amiodarone for Preventing the Recurrence of Symptomatic Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation After Cardioversion

BACKGROUND

It has been previously reported that the efficacy of class I antiarrhythmics in preventing the recurrence of symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited when AF lasts for 48 h or more. However, it is unclear whether the efficacy of amiodarone, a class III drug, is superior to class I antiarrhythmics in patients with long-lasting AF.

METHOD AND RESULTS

The relationship between the duration of tachycardia and the efficacy of amiodarone in preventing recurrence of tachycardia was examined in 55 patients (37 men, 18 women, mean age 68+/-9 years) to whom amiodarone was administered after electrical or pharmacological cardioversion for paroxysmal and persistent AF. In 26 patients, paroxysmal and persistent AF ceased within 48 h after onset (Group A), and in the other 29 patients, it ceased after 48 h (Group B). Patient characteristics and actuarial recurrence-free rates were compared between the 2 groups. The mean follow-up period was 30+/-11 months. No statistically significant difference between the groups was found in patient characteristics. Actuarial recurrence-free rates in Group A and B at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 100%, 81%, 69%, 62%, and 54%, and 93%, 79%, 66%, 52%, and 48%, respectively (p=NS at 12 months). The period of maintenance of sinus rhythm was 14.7+/-3.2 months in group A and 13.3+/-3.3 months in group B (mean+/-SE, p=NS).

CONCLUSION

In the case of amiodarone, efficacy for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of AF was not biased by the duration of arrhythmia. This observation suggests amiodarone is effective in maintaining normal sinus rhythm after cardioversion, even in patients with long-lasting AF and electrical atrial remodeling.

Dose-Response Effect of Flecainide in Patients With Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation and/or Flutter Monitored With Trans-Telephonic Electrocardiography A Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter (PAF/PAFL) experiencing 2 or more episodes of symptomatic PAF/PAFL during a 28-day observation period to determine the dose-response effect and safety of flecainide.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 143 patients at 30 centers were randomized to receive 25, 50, or 100 mg of flecainide or placebo twice daily (BID). In 123 patients (per protocol set), those remaining free from PAF/PAFL after the treatment were 3.1% on placebo, 7.7% on 25 mg/BID, 9.4% on 50 mg/BID, and 39.4% on 100 mg/BID of flecainide. As a whole group, a significant linear dose-response (p<0.001) was observed and a significant difference between placebo and 100 mg/BID was observed (p<0.001). A similar dose-response between the present study and Caucasian study was demonstrated. Although there were 5 patients who needed cardioversion or ablation because of frequent episodes of PAF/PAFL (2 in 25 mg/BID, 1 in 50 mg/BID, and 2 in 100 mg/BID of flecainide), neither death nor ventricular proarrhythmic event was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that flecainide exerted a significant dose-dependent effect on the prevention of symptomatic PAF/PAFL recurrence and showed that there was no inter-ethnic difference in the clinical effect of flecainide in patients with PAF/PAFL.