-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Atrial fibrillation often recurs after restoration of normal sinus rhythm. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been...
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.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31483500
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005049.pub5 -
Journal of Cardiology Nov 2021The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous magnesium (IV Mg) in rate and rhythm control of rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous magnesium (IV Mg) in rate and rhythm control of rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) when administered in addition to standard-of-care for non-post-operative patients. Previous meta-analyses on this topic have demonstrated the efficacy of IV Mg in achieving rate control, but not rhythm control.
METHODS
Six randomized controlled trials comparing IV Mg to placebo in the treatment of rapid AF were obtained from electronic databases totaling 745 patients. Outcomes were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and expressed as odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Our pooled analysis showed that IV Mg given in addition to standard-of-care was superior in achieving rate control (63% vs 40%; OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.80-3.45) and rhythm conversion to sinus (21% vs. 14%, OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.84) compared to standard-of-care alone. Flushing was more frequently observed in patients receiving IV Mg compared to placebo (9% vs. 0.4%, OR 19.79, 95% CI 4.30-91.21). Subgroup analysis showed the superiority of a lower dose of IV Mg, which we designated as 5 g or lower (24% vs 13%, OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22-3.61) compared to the higher dose (>5 g) (16% vs 13%, OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.65-2.32) in rhythm control when compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
IV Mg administered in conjunction with standard-of-care is effective for rate control and modestly effective for restoration of sinus rhythm in rapid AF without clinically significant adverse effects.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Magnesium; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34162502
DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.06.001 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Feb 2023The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response (AFRVR) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in the acute care setting.
METHODS
This study was a systematic review of observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adult patients with AFRVR and concomitant ADHF in the emergency department (ED), intensive care unit, or step-down unit. The primary effectiveness outcome was successful rate or rhythm control. Safety outcomes were adverse events, such as symptomatic hypotension and venous thromboembolism.
RESULTS
A total of 6577 unique articles were identified. Five studies met inclusion criteria: one RCT in the inpatient setting and four retrospective studies, two in the ED and the other three in the inpatient setting. In the RCT of diltiazem versus placebo, 22 patients (100%) in the treatment group had a therapeutic response compared to 0/15 (0%) in the placebo group, with no significant safety differences between the two groups. For three of the observational studies, data were limited. One observation study showed no difference between metoprolol and diltiazem for successful rate control, but worsening heart failure symptoms occurred more frequently in those receiving diltiazem compared to metoprolol (19 patients [33%] vs. 10 patients [15%], p = 0.019). A single study included electrical cardioversion (one patient exposed with failure to convert to sinus rhythm) as nonpharmacological management. The overall risk of bias for included studies ranged from serious to critical. Missing data and heterogeneity of definitions for effectiveness and safety outcomes precluded the combination of results for quantitative meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
High-level evidence to inform clinical decision making regarding effective and safe management of AFRVR in patients with ADHF in the acute care setting is lacking.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Diltiazem; Metoprolol; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Failure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36326565
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14618 -
Cureus Aug 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since then, the disease has spread globally, leading to the ongoing pandemic. It can cause severe respiratory illness; however, many cases of pericarditis have also been reported. This systematic review aims to recognize the clinical features of pericarditis and myopericarditis in COVID-19 patients. Google Scholar, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting "Coronavirus" or "COVID" and "Peri-myocarditis," "heart," or "retrospective." Case reports and retrospective studies published from May 2020 to February 2021 were reviewed. In total, 33 studies on pericarditis, myopericarditis, and pericardial infusion were included in this review. COVID-19 pericarditis affected adult patients at any age. The incidence is more common in males, with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. Chest pain (60%), fever (51%), and shortness of breath (51%) were the most reported symptoms, followed by cough (39%), fatigue (15%), myalgia (12%), and diarrhea (12%). Laboratory tests revealed leukocytosis with neutrophil predominance, elevated D-dimer, erythrocyte rate, and C-reactive protein. Cardiac markers including troponin-1, troponin-T, and brain natriuretic peptide were elevated in most cases. Radiographic imaging of the chest were mostly normal, and only 31% of chest X-rays showed cardiomegaly and or bilateral infiltration. Electrocardiography (ECG) demonstrated normal sinus rhythm with around 59% ST elevation and rarely PR depression or T wave inversion, while the predominant echocardiographic feature was pericardial effusion. Management with colchicine was favored in most cases, followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and interventional therapy was only needed when patient developed cardiac tamponade. The majority of the reviewed studies reported either recovery or no continued clinical deterioration. The prevalence of COVID-19-related cardiac diseases is high, and pericarditis is a known extrapulmonary manifestation. However, pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade are less prevalent and may require urgent intervention to prevent mortality. Pericarditis should be considered in patients with chest pain, ST elevation on ECG, a normal coronary angiogram, and COVID-19. We emphasize the importance of clinical examination, ECG, and echocardiogram for decision-making, and NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids are considered to be safe in the treatment of pericarditis/myopericarditis associated with COVID-19.
PubMed: 36120210
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27948 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Sep 2023Human cystic echinococcosis (CE), is a common health problem in low- and middle-income countries. Cardiac involvement is a relatively rare manifestation of Echinococcus...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Human cystic echinococcosis (CE), is a common health problem in low- and middle-income countries. Cardiac involvement is a relatively rare manifestation of Echinococcus infection. This study aims to summarize the evidence regarding the features of cardiac CE.
METHODS
Case series of the patients with cardiac CE, were included in this study. Non-English papers, case reports, reviews, letters, , commentaries, and conference abstracts were not included. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE databases and the risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist.
RESULTS
Out of 3985 results of the searches, finally 37 studies were included in this systematic review. Based on available evidence, cardiac involvement is an uncommon but serious presentation of CE which presents with some non-specific signs and symptoms. Dyspnea, chest pain, and palpitation are the most common symptoms of the disease and normal sinus rhythm is the most common Electrocardiogram (ECG) feature. The disease is not associated with high mortality in case of timely diagnosis and appropriate management.
DISCUSSION
Consecutive and complete inclusion of participants, statistical analysis, and appropriate reporting of the demographics were the sources of bias in the included studies. The exclusion of non-English papers was a limitation during the review process.
FUNDING
The research protocol was approved and supported by the Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (grant number: 69380).
REGISTRATION
This study was registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022381204).
Topics: Humans; Echinococcosis; Electrocardiography; Heart; Heart Diseases
PubMed: 37705012
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08576-3 -
Cureus Nov 2023A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in... (Review)
Review
A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in children and infants (one hour to 17 years of age) with no structural heart disease by PRISMA guideline. Our team conducted an exhaustive systematic literature review (SLR), utilizing an extensive search methodology across recognized databases like PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. We included 10 scholarly articles that satisfied our rigorous selection criteria including systematic reviews/meta-analysis, and randomized control trials, shedding light on treatment with amiodarone and adenosine for SVT in pediatric patients. There is no first- or second-line treatment for SVT in pediatrics, and drug effectiveness can vary significantly between patients. Adenosine has a shorter half-life than other drugs, instead, it is safer and more valuable when an electrocardiogram is uncertain, it is recommended as an acute management, and it continues as the first-line option for paroxysmal SVT. Amiodarone management patients with acute STV within, its use showed better results when administered 48 hours after diagnosis. Furthermore, it is recommended to reduce the incidence of junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET), by pre-operative prophylaxis, also for chronic control in this and other types of SVT. In none of the evaluated studies were documented significant adverse effects in pediatric patients. Side effects that did occur were mild and easily managed. The studies also emphasize that although both amiodarone and adenosine can successfully convert SVT to sinus rhythm, better results have been observed when using combined therapies of each recommended medication. Therefore, more randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews are needed to solidify and possibly standardize an effective and safe pharmacological treatment for SVT and its types in pediatric patients.
PubMed: 38073952
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48507 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2023(1)Introduction: Catheter ablation has become a cornerstone for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, recurrence rates remain high.... (Review)
Review
(1)Introduction: Catheter ablation has become a cornerstone for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, recurrence rates remain high. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) has been associated with AF pathogenesis and maintenance. However, the literature has provided equivocal results regarding the relationship between EAT and post-ablation recurrence.(2) Purpose: to investigate the relationship between total and peri-left atrium (peri-LA) EAT with post-ablation AF recurrence. (3) Methods: major electronic databases were searched for articles assessing the relationship between EAT, quantified using computed tomography, and the recurrence of AF following catheter ablation procedures. (4) Results: Twelve studies (2179 patients) assessed total EAT and another twelve (2879 patients) peri-LA EAT. Almost 60% of the included patients had paroxysmal AF and recurrence was documented in 34%. Those who maintained sinus rhythm had a significantly lower volume of peri-LA EAT (SMD: -0.37, 95%; CI: -0.58-0.16, I2: 68%). On the contrary, no significant difference was documented for total EAT (SMD: -0.32, 95%; CI: -0.65-0.01; I2: 92%). No differences were revealed between radiofrequency and cryoenergy pulmonary venous isolation. No publication bias was identified. (5) Conclusions: Only peri-LA EAT seems to be predictive of post-ablation AF recurrence. These findings may reflect different pathophysiological roles of EAT depending on its location. Whether peri-LA EAT can be used as a predictor and target to prevent recurrence is a matter of further research.
PubMed: 37835012
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196369 -
Clinical Cardiology Jun 2023There are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF).
HYPOTHESIS
We hypothesized that dronedarone and sotalol, two commonly prescribed VW class III AADs with class II properties, have different safety and efficacy effects in patients with nonpermanent AF.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 15, 2021 (NCT05279833). Clinical trials and observational studies that evaluated safety and efficacy of dronedarone or sotalol in adults with AF were included. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to quantify comparative safety and efficacy. Where feasible, we performed sensitivity analyses by including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
Of 3581 records identified through database searches, 37 unique studies (23 RCTs, 13 observational studies, and 1 nonrandomized trial) were included in the NMA. Dronedarone was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus sotalol (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% credible interval, CrI: 0.19, 0.74]). The association was numerically similar in the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.46 [95% CrI: 0.21, 1.02]). AF recurrence and cardiovascular death results were not significantly different between dronedarone and sotalol in all-studies and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
The NMA findings indicate that, across all clinical trials and observational studies included, dronedarone compared with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, but with no difference in AF recurrence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Dronedarone; Network Meta-Analysis; Sotalol
PubMed: 37025083
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24011 -
Cureus Dec 2021Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly diagnosed arrhythmia, and ECG remains the gold standard for diagnosing AF. Wrist-worn technologies are appealing for their... (Review)
Review
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly diagnosed arrhythmia, and ECG remains the gold standard for diagnosing AF. Wrist-worn technologies are appealing for their ability to passively process near-continuous pulse signals. The clinical application of wearable devices is controversial. Our systematic review and meta-analysis qualitatively and quantitatively analyze available literature on wrist-worn wearable devices (Apple Watch, Samsung, and KardiaBand) and their sensitivity and specificity in detecting AF compared to conventional methods. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, yielding nine studies (n = 1,581). Observational studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of wrist-worn wearables in detecting AF in patients with and without a history of AF were included and analyzed using a fixed-effect model with an inverse-variance method. In patients with a history of AF, the overall sensitivity between device groups did not significantly differ (96.83%; P = 0.207). Specificity significantly differed between Apple, Samsung, and KardiaBand (99.61%, 81.13%, and 97.98%, respectively; P<0.001). The effect size for this analysis was highest in the Samsung device group. Two studies (n = 796) differentiated cohorts to assess device sensitivity in patients with known AF and device specificity in patients with normal sinus rhythm (NSR) (sensitivity: 96.02%; confidence intervals (CI) 93.85%-97.59% and specificity: 98.82%; CI:97.46%-99.57%). Wrist-worn wearable devices demonstrate promising results in detecting AF in patients with paroxysmal AF. However, more rigorous prospective data is needed to understand the limitations of these devices in regard to varying specificities which may lead to unintended downstream medical testing and costs.
PubMed: 35036196
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.20362 -
Cureus Jul 2022The emergency treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves utilizing two strategies. The first strategy normally involves permitting the atrial fibrillation to... (Review)
Review
An Integrative Comparative Study Between Digoxin and Amiodarone as an Emergency Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Evidence of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The emergency treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves utilizing two strategies. The first strategy normally involves permitting the atrial fibrillation to persevere as the ventricular rate is controlled. The other method involves utilizing anti-arrhythmic drugs in cardioversion and attempting to maintain sinus rhythm. Different pharmacological treatments, including digoxin and amiodarone, have been used to manage AF. A literature review on amiodarone and digoxin in the treatment of AF among patients with heart failure (HF) has shown that both drugs have potential risks. Therefore, we are conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of amiodarone and digoxin in the treatment of AF among patients with evidence of HF. A literature search of relevant articles was conducted on six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) from 2000 to 2022. The search yielded seven studies that had met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis of four studies showed that there was no significant difference in the reduction of heart rate after treatment with either amiodarone or digoxin (mean difference (MD): -5.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): -9.53 to -1.34; I = 25%; p = 0.26). On the other hand, the statistical analysis showed that amiodarone had a better effect on the conversion to sinus rhythm than digoxin (63% versus 35%, respectively). Based on evidence from our meta-analysis, the clinical effect of amiodarone and digoxin in the emergency treatment of AF on heart rate control was unclear. However, amiodarone has a significant impact on the restoration of sinus rhythm compared with digoxin and can be considered the first-line drug regimen in conversion to sinus rhythm for AF patients with evidence of heart failure. However, the use of amiodarone and digoxin is complicated by adverse events and all-cause mortality.
PubMed: 35971374
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26800