-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2014Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the literature, but for the purposes of this review we have included studies where atrial fibrillation may have occurred up to 7 days previously. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. The condition resolves spontaneously within 24 to 48 hours in more than 50% of people; however, many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent embolism, for conversion to sinus rhythm, and to control heart rate in people with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, metoprolol, nebivolol, propafenone, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Safety
PubMed: 25430048
DOI: No ID Found -
Resuscitation Dec 2017Despite their wide use in the prehospital setting, randomized control trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate that any antiarrhythmic agent improves survival to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite their wide use in the prehospital setting, randomized control trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate that any antiarrhythmic agent improves survival to hospital discharge following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the use of antiarrhythmic drugs for patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
METHODS
Electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of antiarrhythmic agents administered during resuscitation for adult (≥18years) patients suffering non-traumatic OHCA were included. Direct and indirect evidence were combined in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using a frequentist approach with fixed-effects models and reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For each pairwise comparison, the certainty of direct, indirect, and network evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
8 RCTs involving 4464 patients were combined to compare the effectiveness of 5 antiarrhythmic agents and placebo administered during resuscitation following OHCA. Lidocaine was associated with a statistically significant increase in ROSC compared to placebo (1.15; 95% CI: 1.03-1.28) and was also superior to bretylium (1.61; 95% CI: 1.00-2.60) for ROSC. When compared to placebo, both amiodarone (1.18; 95% CI: 1.08-1.30) and lidocaine (1.18; 95% CI: 1.07-1.30) were associated with a statistically significant increase in survival to hospital admission. However, no antiarrhythmic was statistically more effective than placebo for survival to hospital discharge or neurologically intact survival, and no antiarrhythmic was convincingly superior to any other for any outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Amiodarone and lidocaine were the only agents associated with improved survival to hospital admission in the NMA. For the outcomes most important to patients, survival to hospital discharge and neurologically intact survival, no antiarrhythmic was convincingly superior to any other or to placebo.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Bretylium Compounds; Humans; Lidocaine; Network Meta-Analysis; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29037886
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.10.012 -
Heart Rhythm Jul 2016Treatment strategies to prevent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) include antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation for the prevention of recurrent ventricular tachycardia in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Treatment strategies to prevent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) include antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and catheter ablation (CA).
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the efficacy of AADs and CA for the prevention of VT in patients with ICDs.
METHODS
Major databases were searched (October 2015) for randomized trials evaluating AADs or CA vs standard medical therapy to prevent VT in ICD patients. Primary outcome was the number of VT episodes leading to appropriate ICD interventions.
RESULTS
Eight trials (n = 2268, follow-up 15 ± 6 months) evaluated AADs, and 6 trials (n = 427, follow-up 14 ± 8 months) evaluated CA. A significant reduction in appropriate ICD interventions was found with both CA (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.71, P = .001) and AADs (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.97, P = .037), with no significant difference between the 2 treatment strategies. The benefit of AADs was driven by amiodarone and not confirmed with other AADs. A reduction of inappropriate ICD interventions was found with AADs (OR 0.30, P = .001) but not with CA. Both CA and AADs were not associated with decreased mortality over follow-up. Amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of death (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.36-8.30, P = .009).
CONCLUSION
In patients with an ICD, both AADs (amiodarone) and CA reduce the risk of recurrent VT compared to control medical therapy, with no significant difference between the 2 treatments. AADs are also associated with a reduction of inappropriate ICD therapies. The significant reduction of recurrent VT episodes does not appear to result in a mortality benefit, with a potential for increased mortality with amiodarone.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Catheter Ablation; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electric Countershock; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Tachycardia, Ventricular
PubMed: 26961297
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.03.004 -
International Journal of Cardiology May 2013To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).
METHODS
Database searches (accessed April 2009) were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Comparators of interest included all AADs, rate/rhythm strategies or catheter ablation in comparison with AADs. Primary AADs of interest were restricted to Class IC (flecainide and propafenone) and Class III (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone and sotalol). Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and meta-analysis performed using the Peto odds ratio (OR)/fixed-effect model.
RESULTS
113 publications met inclusion criteria. Of these, 74 publications considered an AAD of primary interest. The odds of AF recurrence were generally significantly lower with all active treatments versus non-active control. Dronedarone was the only AAD to show a (non-significant) trend towards reducing the odds of mortality with a narrow CI (OR 0.85 [0.66, 1.09]). Withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs), incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and treatment discontinuation were increased following active treatment compared with control, with few significant differences reported between active treatments. Data for other morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations or persistence/compliance and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were limited and meta-analyses were not possible for these outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The current meta-analysis confirms the efficacy of AADs in preventing AF recurrence, although their use is associated with a greater incidence of AEs and treatment discontinuation. Further RCTs are required to establish the benefit of AADs in the management of both morbidity outcomes and HRQoL.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22469557
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.03.070 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Aug 2023Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are excreted by P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and some are metabolized by CYP450 enzymes such as CYP3A4. Although fewer drug... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Using P-gp and/or CYP450-Interacting Drugs: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are excreted by P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and some are metabolized by CYP450 enzymes such as CYP3A4. Although fewer drug interactions are present with NOACs, it is unclear whether NOACs should also be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using pharmacokinetically interacting drugs. Therefore, the benefit-risk profile of NOACs versus VKAs was investigated in AF patients treated with P-gp and/or CYP450-interacting drugs.
METHODS
Using PubMed and Embase, randomized controlled trials and observational studies on the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus VKAs in AF patients using P-gp and/or CYP450-interacting drugs were included. A meta-analysis was performed, calculating relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with the Mantel-Haenszel method.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included, investigating 10,793 NOAC and 10,096 VKA users treated with P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, whereas no studies on P-gp and/or CYP450-inducing drugs were identified. Compared to VKAs, NOACs were associated with a borderline non-significantly lower stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) risk (RR 0.85, 95%CI (0.72-1.01)), significantly lower intracranial bleeding (RR 0.47, 95%CI (0.34-0.65)) and all-cause mortality risks (RR 0.87, 95%CI (0.79-0.95), but significantly higher gastrointestinal bleeding risk (RR 1.74, 95%CI (1.06-2.86)). Among AF patients using amiodarone, NOACs were associated with significantly lower stroke/SE (RR 0.71, 95%CI (0.54-0.93)) and intracranial bleeding risks (RR 0.51, 95%CI (0.29-0.88)), but significantly higher gastrointestinal bleeding risk (RR 2.15, 95%CI (1.24-3.72)) than VKAs.
CONCLUSION
The benefit-risk profile of NOACs compared to VKAs was preserved in AF patients using P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, including amiodarone.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 1; Administration, Oral; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors; Stroke; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Embolism; Amiodarone
PubMed: 34637052
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-021-07279-8 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Jun 2020We sought to identify the most effective antidysrhythmic drug for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
We sought to identify the most effective antidysrhythmic drug for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF).
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to March 2019, limited to human subjects and English language. We also searched for unpublished data. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult patients with AF ≤ 48 h and compared antidysrhythmic agents, placebo, or control. We determined these outcomes prior to data extraction: (i) rate of conversion to sinus rhythm within 24 h, (ii) time to cardioversion to sinus rhythm, (iii) rate of significant adverse events, and (iv) rate of thromboembolism within 30 days. We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised selected trials using the Cochrane review handbook. The systematic review initially identified 640 studies; 30 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials that randomized 2785 patients provided efficacy data for the conversion rate outcome. Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model demonstrated that ranolazine + amiodarone intravenous (IV) [odds ratio (OR) 39.8, 95% credible interval (CrI) 8.3-203.1], vernakalant (OR 22.9, 95% CrI 3.7-146.3), flecainide (OR 16.9, 95% CrI 4.1-73.3), amiodarone oral (OR 10.2, 95% CrI 3.1-36.0), ibutilide (OR 7.9, 95% CrI 1.2-52.5), amiodarone IV (OR 5.4, 95% CrI 2.1-14.6), and propafenone (OR 4.1, 95% CrI 1.7-10.5) were associated with significantly increased likelihood of conversion within 24 h when compared to placebo/control. Overall quality was low, and the network exhibited inconsistency. Probabilistic analysis ranked vernakalant and flecainide high and propafenone and amiodarone IV low.
CONCLUSION
For pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset AF within 24 h, there is insufficient evidence to determine which treatment is superior. Vernakalant and flecainide may be relatively more efficacious agents. Propafenone and IV amiodarone may be relatively less efficacious. Further high-quality study is necessary.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Bayes Theorem; Electric Countershock; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32176779
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euaa024 -
Circulation. Arrhythmia and... Dec 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Administration, Oral; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Rate; Humans; Recovery of Function; Tachycardia, Supraventricular; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34802256
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.121.010321 -
International Journal of Cardiology Jan 2017Available pharmacological options for rhythm control strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) are limited by sub-optimal efficacy and potentially serious adverse events. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Available pharmacological options for rhythm control strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) are limited by sub-optimal efficacy and potentially serious adverse events. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to determine the efficacy and safety of ranolazine for AF management.
METHODS
The present meta-analysis was conducted according to current recommendations (CRD42016039000). Two large medical databases (MEDLINE and Scopus) were systematically searched and from that eight randomized clinical trials and two non-randomized observational studies were identified. The primary endpoint was to determine the efficacy of ranolazine to prevent AF episodes. Secondary efficacy endpoints were: efficacy in converting AF to sinus rhythm, time to conversion, and reduction in AF burden. Safety endpoints included death, serious adverse events, and QTc prolongation.
RESULTS
Ranolazine was found to be effective in reducing the risk of AF when compared to control (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.29-0.76; p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed a larger effect size in post-operative AF (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.11-0.77; p=0.03) when compared to no post-operative AF (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54-0.83; p=0.005). Ranolazine increased the chances of successful cardioversion when added to amiodarone over amiodarone alone (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.42-6.79; p=0.004) while significantly reducing time to conversion (SMD -2.83h; 95% CI -4.69--0.97h; p<0.001). Overall risks of death, adverse events, and QTc prolongation were comparable between ranolazine and control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Ranolazine is an effective option when used for rhythm control strategy in AF. The use of ranolazine seems to be safe and associated with few adverse events.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiovascular Agents; Humans; Ranolazine
PubMed: 27839812
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.103 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2008Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. Acute atrial fibrillation resolves spontaneously within 24-48 hours in over 50% of people, however many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions: to prevent embolism; for conversion to sinus rhythm; and to control heart rate in people with recent onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 28 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, propafenone, quinidine, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Acute Disease; Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Propafenone; Sotalol
PubMed: 19450312
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology Jul 2020Vernakalant is a novel, relatively atrial-selective antiarrhythmic agent. Despite its good efficacy profile and rapid onset of action, there was still controversial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vernakalant is a novel, relatively atrial-selective antiarrhythmic agent. Despite its good efficacy profile and rapid onset of action, there was still controversial evidence regarding vernakalant-related adverse events. We searched PubMed and Embase for studies that compared intravenous vernakalant with placebo or antiarrhythmic agents in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) lasting no more than 7 days. Efficacy and safety outcomes were the treatment-induced cardioversion rate within 90 minutes and adverse events after first exposure to study drug respectively. Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling 1296 patients were analyzed. Quantitative synthesis showed that vernakalant was superior to placebo for cardioversion of recent-onset AF within 90 minutes [49.7% vs. 6.2%, risk ratio (RR) 8.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.35-12.36, P < 0.00001], and it did not achieve statistical significance in cardioversion when vernakalant was compared with ibutilide (62.4% vs. 47.3%, RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.73, P = 0.05). As for safety assessment, no significant differences were found in occurring serious adverse events (9.9% vs. 10.4%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.25, P = 0.57) and hypotension (5.3% vs. 3.3%, RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.86-2.73, P = 0.15) between vernakalant and comparator (either placebo, ibutilide, or amiodarone). There were trends that patients receiving vernakalant experienced more drug discontinuation (2.5% vs. 1.0%, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.96-5.11, P = 0.06) and less any ventricular tachycardia (6.1% vs. 8.1%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-1.00, P = 0.05) than those receiving comparator, but the differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, vernakalant was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia in comparison with comparator (6.3% vs. 1.1%, RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.67-9.75, P = 0.002). Vernakalant is effective in converting recent-onset AF to sinus rhythm rapidly, while significantly more bradycardia events are related to vernakalant in our meta-analysis.
Topics: Anisoles; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Bradycardia; Heart Rate; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32251022
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000000832