BACKGROUND: Dronedarone is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) as a safe alternative to amiodarone. There are no full-length published reports describing the effectiveness of acute dronedarone use against AF in experimental or clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of acute dronedarone and amiodarone on electrophysiological parameters, and their anti-AF efficacy in canine isolated arterially perfused right atria. METHODS: Transmembrane action potentials and pseudoelectrocardiograms were recorded. Acetylcholine (ACh, 1.0 muM) was used to induce persistent AF. RESULTS: Amiodarone-induced changes were much more pronounced than those of dronedarone on (1) action potential duration (DeltaAPD(90), +51 +/- 17 ms vs. 4 +/- 6 ms, P >.01), (2) effective refractory period (DeltaERP, +84 +/- 23 ms vs. 18 +/- 9 ms, P <.001), (3) diastolic threshold of excitation (DeltaDTE, +0.32 +/- 0.11 mA vs. 0.03 +/- 0.02 mA, P <.001), and (4) V(max) (DeltaV(max), -43 +/- 14% vs. -11 +/- 4%, P <.01, n = 5 to 6; all recorded at 10 muM, cycle length = 500 ms). Persistent AF was induced in 10 of 10 atria exposed to ACh alone; subsequent addition of dronedarone or amiodarone terminated AF in 1 of 7 and 4 of 5 atria, respectively. Persistent ACh-mediated AF was induced in 5 of 6 and 0 of 5 atria pretreated with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. CONCLUSION: The electrophysiological effects and anti-AF efficacy of acute dronedarone are much weaker than those of amiodarone in a canine model of AF. The efficacy of acute dronedarone to prevent induction of acetylcholine-mediated AF as well as to terminate persistent AF in canine right atria is relatively poor. Our data suggest that acute dronedarone is a poor substitute for amiodarone for acute cardioversion of AF or prevention of AF recurrence. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND:Dronedarone is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) as a safe alternative to amiodarone. There are no full-length published reports describing the effectiveness of acute dronedarone use against AF in experimental or clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of acute dronedarone and amiodarone on electrophysiological parameters, and their anti-AF efficacy in canine isolated arterially perfused right atria. METHODS: Transmembrane action potentials and pseudoelectrocardiograms were recorded. Acetylcholine (ACh, 1.0 muM) was used to induce persistent AF. RESULTS:Amiodarone-induced changes were much more pronounced than those of dronedarone on (1) action potential duration (DeltaAPD(90), +51 +/- 17 ms vs. 4 +/- 6 ms, P >.01), (2) effective refractory period (DeltaERP, +84 +/- 23 ms vs. 18 +/- 9 ms, P <.001), (3) diastolic threshold of excitation (DeltaDTE, +0.32 +/- 0.11 mA vs. 0.03 +/- 0.02 mA, P <.001), and (4) V(max) (DeltaV(max), -43 +/- 14% vs. -11 +/- 4%, P <.01, n = 5 to 6; all recorded at 10 muM, cycle length = 500 ms). Persistent AF was induced in 10 of 10 atria exposed to ACh alone; subsequent addition of dronedarone or amiodarone terminated AF in 1 of 7 and 4 of 5 atria, respectively. Persistent ACh-mediated AF was induced in 5 of 6 and 0 of 5 atria pretreated with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. CONCLUSION: The electrophysiological effects and anti-AF efficacy of acute dronedarone are much weaker than those of amiodarone in a canine model of AF. The efficacy of acute dronedarone to prevent induction of acetylcholine-mediated AF as well as to terminate persistent AF in canine right atria is relatively poor. Our data suggest that acute dronedarone is a poor substitute for amiodarone for acute cardioversion of AF or prevention of AF recurrence. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Valentin Fuster; Lars E Rydén; David S Cannom; Harry J Crijns; Anne B Curtis; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Jonathan L Halperin; Jean-Yves Le Heuzey; G Neal Kay; James E Lowe; S Bertil Olsson; Eric N Prystowsky; Juan Luis Tamargo; Samuel Wann; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffery L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Sharon Ann Hunt; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Silvia G Priori; Jean-Jacques Blanc; Andrzej Budaj; A John Camm; Veronica Dean; Jaap W Deckers; Catherine Despres; Kenneth Dickstein; John Lekakis; Keith McGregor; Marco Metra; Joao Morais; Ady Osterspey; José Luis Zamorano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C Torp-Pedersen; M Møller; P E Bloch-Thomsen; L Køber; E Sandøe; K Egstrup; E Agner; J Carlsen; J Videbaek; B Marchant; A J Camm Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bramah N Singh; Stuart J Connolly; Harry J G M Crijns; Denis Roy; Peter R Kowey; Alessandro Capucci; David Radzik; Etienne M Aliot; Stefan H Hohnloser Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander Burashnikov; José M Di Diego; Andrew C Zygmunt; Luiz Belardinelli; Charles Antzelevitch Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David Filgueiras-Rama; Sergio Castrejón; Conrado Calvo; Alejandro Estrada; David Doiny; Marta Ortega; Omer Berenfeld; José L Merino; José Jalife Journal: Arch Cardiol Mex Date: 2012 Apr-Jun
Authors: Gerald V Naccarelli; Deborah L Wolbrette; Vadim Levin; Soraya Samii; Javier E Banchs; Erica Penny-Peterson; Mario D Gonzalez Journal: Clin Med Insights Cardiol Date: 2011-10-06