G D Innes1, L Vertesi, E C Dillon, C Metcalfe. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness of a verapamil-quinidine sequential combination versus digoxin-quinidine in the emergency department treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). METHOD: This prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved patients, aged 18 to 75 years, with new-onset (< 48 hours) atrial fibrillation who presented to a community-based urban hospital with an annual ED census of 65,000. Exclusion criteria included ventricular response ratelower than 100 or higher than 200 beats/minute, allergy to study drugs, hypotension with evidence of end-organ hypoperfusion, and conduction abnormalities. Consenting patients were randomly assigned to receive rapid digitalization (1.0 mg over 2 hours) or i.v. verapamil (sequential 5-mg boluses up to 20 mg). After ventricular rate was controlled (< 100 beats/minute), oral quinidine (200 mg) was initiated and repeated every 2 hours until conversion to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) occurred, until 1 g of quinidine was administered, or until adverse effects supervened. Heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac rhythm, time to conversion, and adverse effects were documented. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received the study drugs. Three were withdrawn, leaving 19 in the verapamil-quinidine (VER-Q) group and 22 in the digoxin-quinidine (DIG-Q) group. Sixteen patients (84%) in the VER-Q group and 10 (45%) in the DIG-Q group converted to NSR within 6 hours (P < .02). Mean time to conversion (+/-SD) was 185 +/- 146 minutes for VER-Q and 368 +/- 386 minutes for DIG-Q patients (P = NS). Twelve VER-Q patients (63%) and 6 DIG-Q patients (27%) were discharged from the ED (P < .05). Minor adverse effects were more common in the VER-Q group. No mortality or significant morbidity occurred. CONCLUSION: The sequential combination of verapamil and quinidine, in the doses studied, is an effective treatment for PAF and is superior to digoxin-quinidine. Digoxin should no longer be considered the treatment of choice for uncomplicated PAF.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness of a verapamil-quinidine sequential combination versus digoxin-quinidine in the emergency department treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). METHOD: This prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved patients, aged 18 to 75 years, with new-onset (< 48 hours) atrial fibrillation who presented to a community-based urban hospital with an annual ED census of 65,000. Exclusion criteria included ventricular response rate lower than 100 or higher than 200 beats/minute, allergy to study drugs, hypotension with evidence of end-organ hypoperfusion, and conduction abnormalities. Consenting patients were randomly assigned to receive rapid digitalization (1.0 mg over 2 hours) or i.v. verapamil (sequential 5-mg boluses up to 20 mg). After ventricular rate was controlled (< 100 beats/minute), oral quinidine (200 mg) was initiated and repeated every 2 hours until conversion to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) occurred, until 1 g of quinidine was administered, or until adverse effects supervened. Heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac rhythm, time to conversion, and adverse effects were documented. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received the study drugs. Three were withdrawn, leaving 19 in the verapamil-quinidine (VER-Q) group and 22 in the digoxin-quinidine (DIG-Q) group. Sixteen patients (84%) in the VER-Q group and 10 (45%) in the DIG-Q group converted to NSR within 6 hours (P < .02). Mean time to conversion (+/-SD) was 185 +/- 146 minutes for VER-Q and 368 +/- 386 minutes for DIG-Qpatients (P = NS). Twelve VER-Qpatients (63%) and 6 DIG-Qpatients (27%) were discharged from the ED (P < .05). Minor adverse effects were more common in the VER-Q group. No mortality or significant morbidity occurred. CONCLUSION: The sequential combination of verapamil and quinidine, in the doses studied, is an effective treatment for PAF and is superior to digoxin-quinidine. Digoxin should no longer be considered the treatment of choice for uncomplicated PAF.
Authors: C-J A Lindholm; O Fredholm; S-J Möller; N Edvardsson; T Kronvall; T Pettersson; V Firsovaite; A Roijer; C J Meurling; P G Platonov; S B Olsson Journal: Heart Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Bernhard Schwaab; Alexander Katalinic; Uta Maria Böge; Jürgen Loh; Peter Blank; Tatjana Kölzow; Dirk Poppe; Hendrik Bonnemeier Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Naqash J Sethi; Emil E Nielsen; Sanam Safi; Joshua Feinberg; Christian Gluud; Janus C Jakobsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.240