External electrical and pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardias: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Cardioversion is a rhythm control strategy to restore normal/sinus rhythm, and can be achieved through drugs (pharmacological) or a synchronised electric shock (electrical cardioversion).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardias.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) and three trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) on 14 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) at the individual patient level. Patient populations were aged ≥ 18 years with AF of any type and duration, atrial flutter or other sustained related atrial arrhythmias, not occurring as a result of reversible causes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology to collect data and performed a network meta-analysis using the standard frequentist graph-theoretical approach using the netmeta package in R. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence which we presented in our summary of findings with a judgement on certainty. We calculated differences using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as well as ranking treatments using a P value. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity and split the networks for the primary outcome and acute procedural success, due to concerns about violating the transitivity assumption.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 112 RCTs (139 records), from which we pooled data from 15,968 patients. The average age ranged from 47 to 72 years and the proportion of male patients ranged from 38% to 92%. Seventy-nine trials were considered to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain, 32 had no high risk of bias domains, but had at least one domain classified as uncertain risk, and one study was considered at low risk for all domains. For paroxysmal AF (35 trials), when compared to placebo, anteroapical (AA)/anteroposterior (AP) biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) cardioversion (RR: 2.42; 95% CI 1.65 to 3.56), quinidine (RR: 2.23; 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34), ibutilide (RR: 2.00; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.12), propafenone (RR: 1.98; 95% CI 1.67 to 2.34), amiodarone (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.02), sotalol (RR: 1.58; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.31) and procainamide (RR: 1.49; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.97) likely result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm until hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate). The effect size was larger for AA/AP incremental and was progressively smaller for the subsequent interventions. Despite low certainty of evidence, antazoline may result in a large increase (RR: 28.60; 95% CI 1.77 to 461.30) in this outcome. Similarly, low-certainty evidence suggests a large increase in this outcome for flecainide (RR: 2.17; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.79), vernakalant (RR: 2.13; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.99), and magnesium (RR: 1.73; 95% CI 0.79 to 3.79). For persistent AF (26 trials), one network was created for electrical cardioversion and showed that, when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches, AP BTE maximum energy with patches (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.55) likely results in a large increase, and active compression AP BTE incremental energy with patches (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.131) likely results in an increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: high). Use of AP BTE incremental with paddles (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight increase, and AP MDS Incremental paddles (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight decrease in efficacy. On the other hand, AP MDS incremental energy using patches (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87), AA RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), AP RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.86), AA MDS incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and AA MDS incremental energy with paddles (RR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83) probably result in a decrease in this outcome when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches (certainty of evidence: moderate). The network for pharmacological cardioversion showed that bepridil (RR: 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.17) and quindine (RR: 1.53, (95% CI 1.01 to 2.32) probably result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up when compared to amiodarone (certainty of evidence: moderate). Dofetilide (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.44), sotalol (RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.18), propafenone (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25) and pilsicainide (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.01) may result in a reduction in this outcome when compared to amiodarone, but the certainty of evidence is low. For atrial flutter (14 trials), a network could be created only for antiarrhythmic drugs. Using placebo as the common comparator, ibutilide (RR: 21.45, 95% CI 4.41 to 104.37), propafenone (RR: 7.15, 95% CI 1.27 to 40.10), dofetilide (RR: 6.43, 95% CI 1.38 to 29.91), and sotalol (RR: 6.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 39.78) probably result in a large increase in the maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate), and procainamide (RR: 4.29, 95% CI 0.63 to 29.03), flecainide (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 52.30) and vernakalant (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 27.37) may result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: low). All tested electrical cardioversion strategies for atrial flutter had very high efficacy (97.9% to 100%). The rate of mortality (14 deaths) and stroke or systemic embolism (3 events) at 30 days was extremely low. Data on quality of life were scarce and of uncertain clinical significance. No information was available regarding heart failure readmissions. Data on duration of hospitalisation was scarce, of low quality, and could not be pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the low quality of evidence, this systematic review provides important information on electrical and pharmacological strategies to help patients and physicians deal with AF and atrial flutter. In the assessment of the patient comorbidity profile, antiarrhythmic drug onset of action and side effect profile versus the need for a physician with experience in sedation, or anaesthetics support for electrical cardioversion are key aspects when choosing the cardioversion method.

Comparative effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs on cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality in atrial fibrillation

AIM

To assess, through a systematic review, evidence for the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) on cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and mortality.

MATERIALS & METHODS

English language articles were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry and were screened for study applicability and methodological quality.

RESULTS

Out of 3526 identified studies, 38 were selected for analysis (19 evaluated individual AADs, 13 compared rate- versus rhythm-control strategies, and 6 evaluated multiple AADs but did not report outcomes for individual agents). None of the studies examining individual AADs employed the CV hospitalization end point used in ATHENA (the reference trial). There were no head-to-head comparisons of individual AADs on CV hospitalization. Most high-quality studies used multidrug rate- versus rhythm-control strategies.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of the comparative effectiveness of individual AADs on CV hospitalization and mortality end points is not possible with the current evidence.

Long-term efficacy of upstream therapy with lipophilic or hydrophilic statins on antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: comparison between atorvastatin and pravastatin

There is little information available on the benefits of selection of statins as upstream therapy for the prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin (A-group, n = 43) and pravastatin (P-group, n = 41) as upstream therapy in patients with paroxysmal AF and dyslipidemia. A total of 84 patients (45 men, mean age, 66 ± 9 years, mean follow-up, 49 ± 32 months) were retrospectively assigned to receive atorvastatin (n = 41;10 mg/day) or pravastatin (n = 43 ; 10 mg/day). Survival rates free from AF recurrence at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months were 93%, 74%, 60%, and 53% in A-group, and 88%, 49%, 37%, and 29%, respectively, in P-group (P = 0.029, A-group versus P-group). Survival rates free from conversion to permanent AF at 12, 36, 60, and 90 months were 100%, 100%, 98%, and 95% in A-group, and 100%, 95%, 88%, and 83%, respectively, in P-group (P = 0.063, A-group versus P-group). Using a logistic regression model, atorvastatin was found to be associated with a significantly reduced risk of AF recurrence in comparison to pravastatin (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.68, P = 0.005). This association remained significant after adjustment for potentially confounding variables (OR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.08-0.86, P = 0.027). Using a logistic regression model, atorvastatin was not associated with a significantly reduced risk of converting to permanent AF in comparison to pravastatin (unadjusted OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.05-1.50, P = 0.138), but this association did show a significant difference after adjustment for potentially confounding variables in a multivariate model (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06-0.96, P = 0.046). Adverse effects requiring discontinuation of statins were observed in 1 case (2%, myalgia) in A-group, and 1 case (2%, elevation in CPK level ≥ 500 IU/L) in P-group, respectively (P = NS, A-group versus P-group). Atorvastatin, a lipophilic statin, was considered to be more effective in preventing recurrence of paroxysmal AF and conversion to permanent AF than pravastatin, a hydrophilic statin.

Rhythm control should be better for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure--rhythm control vs. rate control: which is better in the management of atrial fibrillation? (Rhythm-side)

The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) increases with advancing NHYA cardiac functional class, and it significantly affects the cardiac function of a failing heart. In such situations, clinicians should aim to maintain sinus rhythm in these patients with heart failure (HF) in order to improve their prognosis. However, according to various randomized clinical studies demonstrating the non-superiority of rhythm control over rate control, many clinicians seem to prefer to take the line of least resistance (ie, rate control). Curative catheter ablation mainly based on isolation procedure of the pulmonary veins in patients with AF and HF has demonstrated a significant improvement in left ventricular function, even in the presence of adequate ventricular rate control before the ablation. On the other hand, ablation and biventricular pacing therapy, which is an extreme rate control strategy, has not shown any beneficial effects for these patients. Therefore, a regular RR interval with an appropriate cycle length only is not sufficient to improve cardiac performance, and maintenance of sinus rhythm, which restores atrial contraction and the atrioventricular synchrony, is thought to be essential for an improvement in HF. Thoughtful clinicians should do their best to find a way to keep HF patients in sinus rhythm.

Is catheter ablation a mature fruit for treatment of atrial fibrillation?--is catheter ablation established as a treatment optionof atrial fibrillation? (Con)

In recent years, catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved in tandem with the results from many large-scale randomized clinical studies with antiarrhythmic drugs. The current situations seem to be a concerted move from pharmacological to non-pharmacological treatment. However, the clinical studies with medications have revealed an important viewpoint for the management of AF: the importance of the core aim of AF treatment and the position of electrographic findings as a surrogate marker. Catheter ablation is under challenge as the answers to these issues are awaited. Moreover, many problems with this invasive therapy are to be solved, most of them deriving from the vague definition of success of ablation and no standardization of the technique. For these reasons, catheter ablation is still on the way to maturation and multicenter studies in Japan are required to set a fair benchmark for Japanese patients, drawing a lesson from randomized clinical studies with medications.

Catheter ablation is established as a treatment option for atrial fibrillation--is catheter ablation established as a treatment option of atrial fibrillation? (Pro)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice and it has a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. Large randomized trials have failed to demonstrate a benefit for mortality of the pharmacological rhythm control strategy as compared with the rate control strategy, indicating that rate control may be an adequate treatment for AF. However, further study determined that the presence of AF at the time of study termination was a more potent predictor of mortality than the treatment strategy, suggesting the importance of sinus rhythm. On the other hand, catheter ablation recently has emerged as an alternative treatment option to pharmacological therapy for AF. Although AF ablation is an invasive strategy, over the past decade its efficacy has increased and the complication rate has decreased with the growing experience of operators and evolving technology. Moreover, the ablation methodology, such as pulmonary vein isolation based ablation, is consistent worldwide and the success rate of AF ablation, especially in paroxysmal AF, is similar. Therefore, catheter ablation is established as a treatment option for AF.