James F Doyle1, Kwok M Ho. 1. Intensive Care Unit, Royal Perth Hospital and School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia 6000. jamesdoyle@health.wa.gov.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve sinus rhythm, is safe and effective compared with a placebo or rate control drug in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) of more than 30 days' duration. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing amiodarone with a placebo or rate control drug were identified through the EMBASE (January 1, 1988, to October 18, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1, 1966, to October 18, 2008), and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (second issue 2008) databases with no language restrictions. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials that involved a total of 5060 patients with persistent AF were considered. Amiodarone was more effective than a placebo or rate control drug in achieving sinus rhythm (21.3 vs 9.2 per 100 patient-years in sinus rhythm; relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.5), and its use was not associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (4.7 vs 3.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.8-1.1; P=.51; I2=0%). Cessation of amiodarone therapy because of intolerable adverse effects was more common compared with a placebo or rate control drug (10.7 vs 1.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2; P<.001; I2=70%), but amiodarone was not associated with an increased incidence of hospitalizations (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.1; P=.77; I2=90%). CONCLUSION: Amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve and maintain sinus rhythm, appears to be safe and effective in patients with persistent AF. However, some patients may not tolerate the adverse effects of this agent.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve sinus rhythm, is safe and effective compared with a placebo or rate control drug in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) of more than 30 days' duration. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing amiodarone with a placebo or rate control drug were identified through the EMBASE (January 1, 1988, to October 18, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1, 1966, to October 18, 2008), and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (second issue 2008) databases with no language restrictions. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials that involved a total of 5060 patients with persistent AF were considered. Amiodarone was more effective than a placebo or rate control drug in achieving sinus rhythm (21.3 vs 9.2 per 100 patient-years in sinus rhythm; relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.5), and its use was not associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality (4.7 vs 3.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.8-1.1; P=.51; I2=0%). Cessation of amiodarone therapy because of intolerable adverse effects was more common compared with a placebo or rate control drug (10.7 vs 1.9 per 100 patient-years; RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2; P<.001; I2=70%), but amiodarone was not associated with an increased incidence of hospitalizations (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.1; P=.77; I2=90%). CONCLUSION:Amiodarone, as part of a strategy to achieve and maintain sinus rhythm, appears to be safe and effective in patients with persistent AF. However, some patients may not tolerate the adverse effects of this agent.
Authors: J Galperín; M V Elizari; P A Chiale; R T Molina; R Ledesma; A O Scapín; M Vázquez Blanco Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 2.457
Authors: D G Wyse; A L Waldo; J P DiMarco; M J Domanski; Y Rosenberg; E B Schron; J C Kellen; H L Greene; M C Mickel; J E Dalquist; S D Corley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Lechat; J S Hulot; S Escolano; A Mallet; A Leizorovicz; M Werhlen-Grandjean; G Pochmalicki; H Dargie Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-03-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G E Kochiadakis; N E Igoumenidis; M E Marketou; M C Solomou; E M Kanoupakis; P E Vardas Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1998-04-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: D Roy; M Talajic; P Dorian; S Connolly; M J Eisenberg; M Green; T Kus; J Lambert; M Dubuc; P Gagné; S Nattel; B Thibault Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ana Isabel Morales; Jose Diogo Barata; Margarida Bruges; Miguel Angel Arévalo; José Manuel González de Buitrago; Patricia Palma; Patricia Branco; Fernando Pérez-Barriocanal Journal: Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2003-01
Authors: Aditya J Ullal; Claire T Than; Jun Fan; Susan Schmitt; Alexander C Perino; Daniel W Kaiser; Paul A Heidenreich; Susan M Frayne; Ciaran S Phibbs; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 4.749