Literature DB >> 9801182

Rate control and sinus rhythm maintenance in atrial fibrillation: national trends in medication use, 1980-1996.

R S Stafford1, D C Robson, B Misra, J Ruskin, D E Singer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about national patterns of pharmacological treatment of atrial fibrillation, in particular, use of medications for ventricular rate control and for restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm.
METHODS: We analyzed 1555 visits by patients with atrial fibrillation to randomly selected office-based US physicians included in National Ambulatory Medical Care surveys conducted in 1980, 1981, 1985, and 1989 through 1996. To determine national trends, we evaluated the proportion of atrial fibrillation visits with reported use of rate control medications (digoxin and antiarrhythmics in classes II and IV) and sinus rhythm medications (classes IA, IC, and III).
RESULTS: The use of rate control agents decreased from 79% of atrial fibrillation visits in 1980-1981 to 62% in 1994-1996. Declining use was noted for both digoxin (76% in 1980-1981 to 53% in 1994-1996) and beta-blockers (19%-13%). After their introduction, the use of verapamil hydrochloride and diltiazem hydrochloride increased to 15% of atrial fibrillation visits in 1994-1996. Sinus rhythm agent use decreased from 18% of visits in 1980-1981 to 4% in 1992-1993 and then rose to 13% in 1994-1996. The use of class IA agents declined from 18% in 1980-1981 to 3.5% in 1992-1993 and then increased to 8% in 1994-1996. Quinidine remained the most widely used sinus rhythm medication, despite its declining share of this category. Newly available sotalol hydrochloride and amiodarone hydrochloride were used in 3.6% of visits in 1994-1996.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, digoxin remains the dominant rate control medication. Medications for sinus rhythm maintenance are not widely used. Quinidine use declined prominently in the 1980s, possibly because of concerns about proarrhythmic effects. The use of sinus rhythm agents, however, is now rising.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9801182     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.158.19.2144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  7 in total

1.  Prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. A meta-analysis of trials of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs.

Authors:  J B Segal; R L McNamara; M R Miller; N Kim; S N Goodman; N R Powe; K A Robinson; E B Bass
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation: Avoiding Morbidity.

Authors:  Thomas D Callahan
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2012-12-16

Review 3.  WITHDRAWN: Pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation and flutter.

Authors:  John Cordina; Gillian E Mead
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-11-15

4.  Does patient educational level affect office visits to family physicians?

Authors:  Kevin Fiscella; Meredith A Goodwin; Kurt C Stange
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.798

5.  Trends in utilization of management strategies for newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients in the United States: 1999 to 2008.

Authors:  Arpit Kashyap; Chenghui Li
Journal:  J Pharm Pract       Date:  2011-11-18

6.  Trends in US hospitalization rates and rhythm control therapies following publication of the AFFIRM and RACE trials.

Authors:  William Martin-Doyle; Vidal Essebag; Peter Zimetbaum; Matthew R Reynolds
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-11-18

7.  Impact of Awareness and Patterns of Nonhospitalized Atrial Fibrillation on the Risk of Mortality: The Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study.

Authors:  Wesley T O'Neal; Jimmy T Efird; Suzanne E Judd; Leslie A McClure; Virginia J Howard; George Howard; Elsayed Z Soliman
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.882

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.