Serkan Cay1, Meryem Kara1, Firat Ozcan1, Ozcan Ozeke1, Tolga Aksu2, Dursun Aras1, Serkan Topaloglu1. 1. Division of Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, University of Health Sciences, Yuksek Ihtisas Cardiovascular Building, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Cardiology, Yeditepe University Hospital, Istanbul, 41500, Turkey. aksutolga@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are frequently used after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Class IC AAD use after AF ablation in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain. The aim was to evaluate propafenone use in CAD patients undergoing AF ablation and to compare propafenone with amiodarone regarding ventricular arrhythmia and mortality. METHODS: In this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, consecutive patients with mild to moderate CAD, undergoing AF ablation and receiving either propafenone (study group, n = 263) or amiodarone (control group, n = 499) in the blanking period, were included. After propensity score matching, 212 patients in each group were compared for the primary outcome defined as a composite of ventricular arrhythmic events, which included sudden cardiac death, sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, or non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). Cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline variables of the study and control groups were well matched after propensity score matching. At 12-month follow up, 20 patients (4.7%) (11 in propafenone group and 9 in amiodarone group) experienced the primary outcome measure of NSVT (Gray test p = 0.645). No sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, sudden cardiac death, or cardiovascular mortality were observed. On multivariable competing analysis, age and diabetes but not propafenone use (hazard ratio 1.017; p = 0.804) were found to be independent and significant predictors of the primary outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Propafenone use after AF ablation in patients with mild to moderate CAD had a safety profile similar to amiodarone and was not associated with major arrhythmic events.
BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are frequently used after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Class IC AAD use after AF ablation in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain. The aim was to evaluate propafenone use in CAD patients undergoing AF ablation and to compare propafenone with amiodarone regarding ventricular arrhythmia and mortality. METHODS: In this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, consecutive patients with mild to moderate CAD, undergoing AF ablation and receiving either propafenone (study group, n = 263) or amiodarone (control group, n = 499) in the blanking period, were included. After propensity score matching, 212 patients in each group were compared for the primary outcome defined as a composite of ventricular arrhythmic events, which included sudden cardiac death, sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, or non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). Cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline variables of the study and control groups were well matched after propensity score matching. At 12-month follow up, 20 patients (4.7%) (11 in propafenone group and 9 in amiodarone group) experienced the primary outcome measure of NSVT (Gray test p = 0.645). No sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, sudden cardiac death, or cardiovascular mortality were observed. On multivariable competing analysis, age and diabetes but not propafenone use (hazard ratio 1.017; p = 0.804) were found to be independent and significant predictors of the primary outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Propafenone use after AF ablation in patients with mild to moderate CAD had a safety profile similar to amiodarone and was not associated with major arrhythmic events.
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: Peter Leong-Sit; Jean-Francois Roux; Erica Zado; David J Callans; Fermin Garcia; David Lin; Francis E Marchlinski; Rupa Bala; Sanjay Dixit; Michael Riley; Mathew D Hutchinson; Joshua Cooper; Andrea M Russo; Ralph Verdino; Edward P Gerstenfeld Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2010-11-13
Authors: Jean Sylvain Hermida; Jian Chen; Christian Meyer; Saverio Iacopino; Giuseppe Arena; Nikola Pavlovic; Vedran Velagic; Stewart Healey; Douglas L Packer; Heinz-Friedrich Pitschner; Carlo de Asmundis; Malte Kuniss; Gian Battista Chierchia Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Douglas L Packer; Daniel B Mark; Richard A Robb; Kristi H Monahan; Tristram D Bahnson; Jeanne E Poole; Peter A Noseworthy; Yves D Rosenberg; Neal Jeffries; L Brent Mitchell; Greg C Flaker; Evgeny Pokushalov; Alexander Romanov; T Jared Bunch; Georg Noelker; Andrey Ardashev; Amiran Revishvili; David J Wilber; Riccardo Cappato; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Gerhard Hindricks; D Wyn Davies; Peter R Kowey; Gerald V Naccarelli; James A Reiffel; Jonathan P Piccini; Adam P Silverstein; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Kerry L Lee Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter G Pantlin; Robert M Bober; Michael L Bernard; Sammy Khatib; Glenn M Polin; Paul A Rogers; Daniel P Morin Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-01-24