Literature DB >> 11053705

Comparison of intravenous flecainide, propafenone, and amiodarone for conversion of acute atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm.

F J Martínez-Marcos1, J L García-Garmendia, A Ortega-Carpio, J M Fernández-Gómez, J M Santos, C Camacho.   

Abstract

In a prospective, single-blind trial, we randomized 150 consecutive symptomatic patients with acute (< or = 48 hours' duration) atrial fibrillation to receive intravenous flecainide, propafenone, or amiodarone. Flecainide and propafenone were administered as a bolus dose of 2 mg/kg in 20 minutes. A second bolus dose of 1 mg/kg in 20 minutes was administered if conversion to sinus rhythm was not achieved after 8 hours. Amiodarone was administered as a bolus of 5 mg/kg in 20 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 50 mg/hour. By the end of a 12-hour observation period, conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved in 45 patients (90%) in the flecainide group, 36 (72%) in the propafenone group, and 32 (64%) in the amiodarone group (p = 0.008 for the overall comparison, p = 0.002 for flecainide vs amiodarone, p = 0.022 for flecainide vs propafenone, and p = 0.39 for propafenone vs amiodarone). When compared with amiodarone, this higher reversion rate with flecainide was present from the first hour of the study period. However, only after administering the second bolus was there a significant difference between flecainide and propafenone. Median time to conversion to sinus rhythm was different among groups (p < 0.001), and it was lower in the flecainide (25 minutes; range 4 to 660) and propafenone (30 minutes; range 10 to 660) groups than in the amiodarone group (333 minutes; range 15 to 710; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Flecainide, at the doses administered in this study, is more effective than propafenone and amiodarone for conversion of acute atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Propafenone and amiodarone have similar conversion rates, although propafenone was faster in achieving the conversion to sinus rhythm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11053705     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01128-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  32 in total

1.  MEDEX South Carolina: a progress report.

Authors:  K J Buhmeyer; A R Hutson
Journal:  J S C Med Assoc       Date:  1975-11

Review 2.  Recent developments in atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  M Bilal Iqbal; Anil K Taneja; Gregory Y H Lip; Marcus Flather
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-01-29

Review 3.  [Electrical and pharmacological strategies for early cardioversion of atrial fibrillation].

Authors:  M Linhart; T Lewalter
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2006-06

Review 4.  Management of atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Gregory Y H Lip; Antonio Tello-Montoliu
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 5.  [Atrial fibrillation].

Authors:  M G Hennersdorf; B E Strauer
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 6.  Rhythm control and cardioversion.

Authors:  N Sulke; F Sayers; G Y H Lip
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-09-08       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  [Rate and rhythm control in atrial fibrillation : pharmacological approaches].

Authors:  K F Weipert; D Erkapic; J Schmitt
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 8.  Emergency management of atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  A Wakai; J O O'Neill
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 9. 

Authors:  J P Nolan; C D Deakin; J Soar; B W Böttiger; G Smith; M Baubin; B Dirks; V Wenzel
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 0.826

Review 10.  Pharmacologic management of atrial fibrillation in the elderly: rate control, rhythm control, and anticoagulation.

Authors:  Seth McClennen; Peter J Zimetbaum
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.