Cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation using intravenous antiarrhythmics: A European perspective

Pharmacological cardioversion using intravenous antiarrhythmic agents is commonly indicated in symptomatic patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). Except in hemodynamically unstable patients who require emergency direct current electrical cardioversion, for the majority of hemodynamically stable patients, pharmacological cardioversion represents a valid option and requires the clinician to be familiar with the properties and use of antiarrhythmic agents. The main characteristics of selected intravenous antiarrhythmic agents for conversion of recent-onset AF, the reported success rates, and possible adverse events are discussed. Among intravenous antiarrhythmics, flecainide, propafenone, amiodarone, sotalol, dofetilide, ibutilide, and vernakalant are commonly used. Antazoline, an old antihistaminic agent with antiarrhythmic properties was also reported to give encouraging results in Poland. Intravenous flecainide and propafenone are the only Class I agents still recommended by recent guidelines. Intravenous new Class III agents as dofetilide and ibutilide have high and rapid efficacy in converting AF to sinus rhythm but require strict surveillance with electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring during and after intravenous administration because of the potential risk of QT prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, which can be prevented and properly managed. Vernakalant, a partial atrial selective was shown to have a high success rate and to be safe in real-life use.     

Pharmacologic conversion of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of available evidence

This report reviews the efficacy of currently available antiarrhythmic agents for conversion of atrial fibrilation (AF) to normal sinus rhythm (NSR). A systematic search of literature in the English language was done on computerized databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents, in reference lists, by manual searching, and in contact with expert informants. Published studies involving humans that described the use of antiarrhythmic therapy for conversion of AF to NSR were considered and only studies that examined the use of agents currently available in the United States were included. Studies exclusively describing antiarrhythmic therapy for conversion of postsurgical AF were excluded. The methodology and results of each trial were assessed and attempts were made to acquire additional information from investigators when needed.Assessment of methodological quality was incorporated into a levels-of-evidence scheme. Eighty-eight trials were included, of which 34 (39%) included a placebo group (level I data). We found in recent-onset AF of less than 7 days, intravenous (IV) procainamide, high-dose IV or high-dose combination IV and oral amiodarone, oral quinidine, oral flecainide, oral propafenone, and high-dose oral amiodarone are more effective than placebo for converting AF to NSR. In recent-onset AF of less than 90 days, IV ibutilide is more effective than placebo and IV procainamide. In chronic AF, oral dofetilide converts AF to NSR within 72 hours, and oral propafenone and amiodarone are effective after 30 days of therapy. We conclude than for conversion of recent-onset AF of less than 7 days, procainamide may be considered a preferred IV agent and propafenone a preferred oral agent. For conversion of recent onset AF of longer duration (less than 90 days), IV ibutilide may be considered a preferred agent. For patients with chronic AF and left ventricular dysfunction, direct current cardioversion is the preferred conversion method. Larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials with clinically important endpoints in specific populations of AF patients are needed.     

Comparison of oral loading dose of propafenone and amiodarone for converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation. PARSIFAL Study Group

In patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), restoration of sinus rhythm is considered to be the first-line therapeutic option. Although this conversion might be obtained by direct-current shock or intravenous antiarrhythmic drugs, administration of an oral loading dose of class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs is more simple and convenient. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study compares the time to conversion to sinus rhythm obtained with an oral loading dose of propafenone or amiodarone. Patients with recent-onset AF (<2 weeks), without contraindications for the 2 drugs, were randomly assigned to be treated with propafenone (600 mg for the first 24 hours and if necessary a repeated dose of 300 mg for 24 hours) or amiodarone (30 mg/kg for the first 24 hours and if necessary a repeated dose of 15 mg/kg for 24 hours). Exact conversion time during the first 24 hours was determined by Holter monitoring. In each treatment group 43 patients with the same baseline characteristics were included. The median time for restoration of sinus rhythm was shorter (p = 0.05) in the propafenone (2.4 hours) than in the amiodarone (6.9 hours) group. After 24 hours (56% in the propofenone and 47% in the amiodarone group) and 48 hours, the same proportion of patients in the 2 groups recovered sinus rhythm (no serious adverse events were noticed). Thus, oral loading dose of propafenone or amiodarone was safe with a similar conversion rate of recent-onset AF. Propafenone had a faster action.     

Stunning of the left atrium after pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION: Stunning of the left atrium and atrial appendage is a well known but not fully clarified phenomenon observed during the cardioversion of atrial fibrillation regardless of the cardioversion method attempted. AIM: To assess the effects of propafenone and amiodarone on left atrium and left atrial appendage contractility. METHODS: Forty patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (20 females, 20 males), aged 60-83 (mean 72.0+/-10.1) years, were enrolled into the study. Half of these patients had sinus rhythm restored by the administration of oral propafenone (150-300 mg) and the remaining 20 patients were treated with intravenous amiodarone (150-450 mg). The control group consisted of 20 patients (10 females, 10 males) aged 52-78 (mean 61.2+/-9.3) years with sinus rhythm and no history of atrial fibrillation. All the patients had a transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography performed while still in the AF, before drug administration and 1 hour after sinus rhythm restoration. RESULTS: All haemodynamic parameters of the left atrium measured after the sinus rhythm restoration were significantly worse when compared with the control group. Left atrial fractional shortening and total atrial fraction were significantly lower after propafenone than amiodarone (8.6+/-3.6% vs 11.7+/-5.5%, p<0.05; and LA FC 16.2+/-5.3% vs 23.3 (+/-6.3)% respectively, p<0.05). Doppler echocardiographic parameters included in the analysis such as mitral flow and superior left pulmonary vein flow were significantly lower in the sinus rhythm restoration group than in the control group. Among them the end-diastolic mitral flow velocity amplitude and flow velocity integral as well as the maximum pulmonary retrograde velocity were significantly worse in the group treated with propafenone than in patients receiving amiodarone. All the atrial appendage Doppler velocity parameters were significantly reduced after the sinus rhythm restoration in both groups. In the patients treated with propafenone, values of these parameters were significantly decreased compared with the patients receiving amiodarone. CONCLUSIONS: Successful pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation causes the left atrium and left atrial appendage contractility impairment similar to that observed with other methods of the sinus rhythm restoration. Following the AF cardioversion the level of left atrial stunning is higher in the patients treated with propafenone than in subjects receiving amiodarone.     

Pharmacologic conversion of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of available evidence

This report reviews the efficacy of currently available antiarrhythmic agents for conversion of atrial fibrilation (AF) to normal sinus rhythm (NSR). A systematic search of literature in the English language was done on computerized databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents, in reference lists, by manual searching, and in contact with expert informants. Published studies involving humans that described the use of antiarrhythmic therapy for conversion of AF to NSR were considered and only studies that examined the use of agents currently available in the United States were included. Studies exclusively describing antiarrhythmic therapy for conversion of postsurgical AF were excluded. The methodology and results of each trial were assessed and attempts were made to acquire additional information from investigators when needed. Assessment of methodological quality was incorporated into a levels-of-evidence scheme. Eighty-eight trials were included, of which 34 (39%) included a placebo group (level I data). We found in recent-onset AF of less than 7 days, intravenous (i.v.) procainamide, high-dose i.v. or high-dose combination i.v. and oral amiodarone, oral quinidine, oral flecainide, oral propafenone, and high-dose oral amiodarone are more effective than placebo for converting AF to NSR. In recent-onset AF of less than 90 days, i.v. ibutilide is more effective than placebo and i.v. procainamide. In chronic AF, oral dofetilide converts AF to NSR within 72 hours, and oral propafenone and amiodarone are effective after 30 days of therapy. We conclude than for conversion of recent-onset AF of less than 7 days, procainamide may be considered a preferred i.v. agent and propafenone a preferred oral agent. For conversion of recent-onset AF of longer duration (less than 90 days), i.v. ibutilide may be considered a preferred agent. For patients with chronic AF and left ventricular dysfunction, direct current cardioversion is the preferred conversion method. Larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials with clinically important endpoints in specific populations of AF patients are needed.     

Efficacy and speed of conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation using oral propafenone versus parenteral amiodarone: A randomized controlled comparative study

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia. Several antiarrhythmic agents are effective in restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm.Aim of the workTo compare the efficacy and rapidity of conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation using oral propafenone versus intravenous infusion of amiodarone.MethodsThe study included 200 patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation. Patients were equally divided into 2 groups; group A where intravenous infusion amiodarone was given and group B where oral propafenone was administrated. The effectiveness and the time needed for conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm were compared in both groups.ResultsThe success of conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm was 83% in group A and 85% in group B, p-value = 0.699. The time elapsed from drug administration till conversion of atrial fibrillation was 9.07 ± 5.04 hours in group A versus 3.9 ± 1.54 hours in group B, p-value = 0.001. In both groups, patients who showed failed conversion had a significantly larger left atrial diameter and a significantly higher high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level.ConclusionOral propafenone was faster than parenteral amiodarone in the conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Patients with failed conversion had a bigger left atrial diameter and a higher hsCRP when compared to patients with successful conversion.     

Intravenous amiodarone for cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common causes of hospital admission, with a prevalence of up to 5% of the population, increasing with advancing age. Emergency direct current cardioversion is the therapy of choice when arrhythmia leads to hemodynamic compromise, but in patients who are hemodynamically stable, antiarrhythmic drugs are usually given to restore sinus rhythm. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of intravenous amiodarone in cardioversion of recent-onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). No standard antiarrhythmic therapy has been accepted for pharmacologic cardioversion of AF. Amiodarone seems to be a promising candidate, but only few randomized trials are available and the results are inconsistent. METHODS: In all, 160 patients with AF lasting < 24 h were randomly assigned (2:1 fashion) to the amiodarone group (n = 106) receiving 5 mg/kg as a 30 min intravenous (i.v.) infusion, followed by i.v. infusion of 10 mg/kg during 20 h diluted in 1000 ml of 10% glucose with 20 IU of rapid-action insulin, 80 mEq of potassium chloride, and 8 g of magnesium sulphate (GIKM), or to the control group (n = 54) receiving 1000 ml of GIKM alone. Treatment was continued up to 20 h independent of sinus rhythm restoration. RESULTS: Sinus rhythm was restored 20 h after initiation of therapy in 88 (83%) patients in the amiodarone group and in 24 (44%) patients in the control group (p < 0.0001). The difference between efficacy of the two treatment modalities became significant already after 8 h of therapy (53 vs. 14 patients with sinus rhythm, respectively, p < 0.05). The mean dose of amiodarone administered until sinus rhythm restoration was 740 +/- 296 mg. The presence and the type of underlying heart disease did not influence the conversion rate in either group. In two patients (1.8%) treated with amiodarone, the return of sinus rhythm was preceded by asystole. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone is effective in the termination of AF lasting < 24 h. It may be particularly useful in patients with organic heart disease in whom class I antiarrhythmic agents may be contraindicated. During treatment, the heart rhythm should be monitored continuously.     

Intravenous propafenone in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A randomized,placebo-controlled,double-blind,multicenter clinical trial

Background: Pharmacological conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is frequently necessary. The aim of this study was to compare intravenous propafenone, a class Ic antiar-rhythmic agent, with placebo in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) of recent onset (<72 h). Patients and methods: We randomly allocated 75 patients, aged 18 to 70 years, with paroxysmal AF to receive intravenous propafenone (2 mg/kg in 15 min followed by 1 mg/kg in 2 h) or the matching placebo. Patients were followed for 3 h. Exclusion criteria were the presence of one of the following: clinical heart failure, recent acute myocardial infarction, hypotension, atrioventricular block, Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, or current treatment with antiarrhythmic agents or digitalis. Results: No sign of heart disease was found in 74.7% of the patients. Echocardiographically determined left atrium diameter was similar in the two groups. Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 24 of 41 patients allocated to propafenone and in 10 of 34 patients allocated to placebo (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence intervals 1.3-7.9;p<0.01). Mean conversion time was 34 ± 29 and 71 ± 55 min, respectively, for propafenone and placebo. Mean heart rate in nonconverters decreased from 146 to 109 beats/min in patients treated with propafenone while it remained virtually unchanged in those treated with placebo. Only minor side effects were noted. Conclusions: Intravenous propafenone is an effective therapeutic option for restoring sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal AF of recent onset.     

Long-term outcome in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after successful internal cardioversion

Internal cardioversion is safe and effective in restoring sinus rhythm, even in patients with persistent AF of prolonged duration. Up to 40% to 50% of patients with AF lasting >1 year but <3 years could be maintained in sinus rhythm using a class III antiarrhythmic drug after successful internal cardioversion, and amiodarone appears to be more effective than sotalol in this patient population.     

A comparative study of the efficacy and safety of procainamide versus propafenone versus amiodarone for the conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation

The appropriate treatment for the restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) of recent onset is still the subject of controversy. In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, we investigated the effectiveness and safety of procainamide, propafenone, and amiodarone, administered intravenously, for the conversion of recent-onset AF. We enrolled 362 consecutive patients (183 men; age 34 to 86 years; mean 65+/-10) with AF duration of no >48 hours. Of these patients, 89 were given procainamide, 91 propafenone, 92 amiodarone, and 90 placebo. Treatment was considered successful if conversion to sinus rhythm was achieved within the 24-hour study period. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the 4 groups. The treatment was successful in 61 of the 89 patients who received procainamide (68.53%; median time 3 hours), 73 of the 91 patients who received propafenone (80.21%; median time 1 hour), 82 of the 92 patients who received amiodarone (89.13%; median time 9 hours), and 55 of the 90 patients who received placebo (61.11%; median time 17 hours; p<0.05 for all medicated groups vs placebo; p<0.05 for amiodarone and propafenone vs procainamide). In conclusion, all 3 medications, when administered intravenously, are effective in the restoration of sinus rhythm in recent-onset AF. Amiodarone and propafenone are more effective whereas procainamide and propafenone are faster.     

Medikamentöse Rhythmuskontrolle bei Vorhofflimmern

Medicinal antiarrhythmic therapy is either used in the acute setting to convert atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm or as chronic medication to preserve sinus rhythm if a rhythm control strategy is followed. The choice of the antiarrhythmic agent is based on the presence or absence of structural heart disease. In addition, oral anticoagulation should be established according to current guidelines. In the acute setting the armamentarium comprises flecainide, propafenone, vernakalant and amiodarone. Usually, combination therapy with an atrioventricular (AV) node slowing drug (a beta blocker or verapamil) is used. For chronic rhythm control a class IC drug, such as sotalol, dronedarone and amiodarone is given depending on the comorbidities. In the absence of structural heart disease, rare episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation can be treated by a pill-in-the-pocket strategy, i.e. self-administered pharmacological cardioversion with flecainide or propafenone. Despite recent advances in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, medical rhythm control continues to play an important role due to its ubiquitous availability and relatively easy use. The risk for proarrhythmia has to be evaluated in all patients.     

胺碘酮在心房颤动复律和预防复发中的作用

探讨胺碘酮在心房颤动 (简称房颤 )复律和预防复发中的作用。 10年间共 10 8例房颤患者给予胺碘酮负荷剂量治疗共 10天进行房颤复律 ,9例房颤 (8.3% )持续 2周以内的患者自动复律 ,99例房颤再进行改良的胸背前后位贴片法电复律 ,94例 (94.9% )复律成功 ,复律成功能量为 78.1± 40 .6J。复律成功的 10 3例给予胺碘酮 0 .2 ,每日一次 ,预防复发 ,其后 1个月 ,0 .5年 ,1年 ,2年 ,维持窦律者分别为 98.1% ,88.3% ,71.8% ,5 6 .3% ;而早期用奎尼丁标准法复律共 36例 ,2 0例 (5 5 .6 % )自动复律 ;另 16例再行电复律 ,12例 (75 .0 % )复律成功 ,复律后在相应随访时间维持窦律者分别为 6 5 .0 % ,2 0 .0 % ,0 % ,0 %。结论 :胺碘酮药物复律房颤成功率低于奎尼丁 ,而预防复发却远优于奎尼丁 ;低能电复律法辅助胺碘酮复律是房颤复律的良好选择。慢性房颤心功能良好可用胺碘酮复律并预防复发。     

VErapamil plus antiarrhythmic drugs reduce atrial fibrillation recurrences after an electrical cardioversion (VEPARAF Study).

AIMS: To evaluate the impact, on atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences, of verapamil addition to a class IC or III antiarrhythmic drug in patients, with persistent AF, who underwent an electrical cardioversion (EC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three patients were randomized to receive four different pre-treatment protocols: oral amiodarone (group A), oral flecainide (group F), oral amiodarone plus oral verapamil (group A+V), oral flecainide plus oral verapamil (group F+V). Patients who showed an AF recurrence within 3 months were assigned to the alternative group and underwent a second EC after 48h. During 3 months of follow-up, 89 patients (27.5%) had an AF recurrence. By univariate analysis, verapamil reduced AF recurrences if added to amiodarone or flecainide (from 35% to 20%, P=0.004). Applying Cox proportional hazards regression model, only the younger age, the shorter duration of AF, and the use of verapamil were predictor of maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion. In patients with primary AF recurrence, verapamil addition to group A and F patients, significantly decreased secondary AF recurrence rate as compared to group A+V and F+V patients who stopped the verapamil therapy (68% vs 88%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of verapamil to class IC or III antiarrhythmic drug significantly reduced the AF recurrences, that were more frequent in older patients and in patients with longer lasting AF; moreover, verapamil was effective in reducing the secondary AF recurrences, too.     

厄贝沙坦与胺碘酮联合对风湿性心脏病持续性心房颤动转复患者的窦性心律维持作用

目的 研究风湿性心脏病持续性心房颤动(房颤)应用厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮的窦性心律(窦律)维持作用及复发的危险因素.方法 选择住院准备房颤复律且符合入选标准风湿性心脏病(风心病)瓣膜置换术后持续性房颤患者63例.随机分为对照组(31例)和试验组(32例).对照组给予胺碘酮,试验组用胺碘酮+厄贝沙坦.入选患者转复为窦律后即为试验起始时间,试验终点为转复后12个月.终点事件:症状或无症状房颤首次复发.结果 试验组窦律维持率显著高于对照组(68.7%与41.9%,P＜0.05).治疗12个月后,试验组左心房内径(LAD)显著小于对照组[(48.6±4.6)mm与(51.5±4.2)mm,P＜0.05].风心病持续性房颤复发与LAD(OR 1.242)和是否使用厄贝沙坦(OR 0.226)有关.结论 LAD是风心病持续性房颤复发的危险因素.厄贝沙坦联合胺碘酮在风心病持续性房颤复律后维持窦律的疗效优于单用胺碘酮,并能延缓左心房扩大,防止房颤复发.     

Evaluation of the defibrillation threshold in atrial fibrillation by transoesophageal cardioversion using a biphasic impulse

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of haemodynamic disturbances requires frequently repeated cardioversions, which is associated with the risk of myocardial damage. It is thus necessary to identify methods which can minimise the cardioverter impulse energy. AIM: To define the defibrillation threshold in recent-onset AF using a biphasic impulse, following an infusion of magnesium, potassium, and amiodarone. METHODS: Transoesophageal cardioversion was performed in 32 patients with AF lasting < or =48 hours, in whom prior administration of 40 mEq K+, 4.0 g MgSO4 and 300 mg amiodarone did not restore sinus rhythm. Cardioversion was performed under short intravenous anaesthesia using a biphasic impulse travelling from a multi-annular oesophageal electrode to two electrodes on the anterior chest wall. The initial energy was set to 1 J, which was subsequently increased according to the following protocol: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 and 70 J. RESULTS: Electrical cardioversion following the administration of electrolytes and amiodarone restored sinus rhythm in all the patients (100% efficacy). The mean defibrillation threshold was 12.9+/-14.3 J, with a minimal effective energy of 1 J and a maximum effective energy of 70 J. The defibrillation threshold was in the range from 1 to 10 J in 75% of the patients. The mean cumulative energy transferred between electrodes during evaluation of the defibrillation threshold was 39.7 J (SD, 38.8). CONCLUSIONS: Transoesophageal cardioversion using a low-energy (mean, 12.9 J; range, 1-70 J) biphasic impulse, following the intravenous administration of potassium chloride and amiodarone, was 100% effective in restoring sinus rhythm in AF.     

Efficacy of propafenone for maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with recent onset or persistent atrial fibrillation after conversion: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of propafenone in the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) relapse after restoration of sinus rhythm. METHODS: This study consisted of 110 consecutive patients with recent onset and persistent AF. After restoration of sinus rhythm, patients were randomized to propafenone (n: 58, age: 60 +/- 12 years) or placebo (n: 52, age: 62 +/- 10 years).There were 11 withdrawals (7 in the propafenone and 4 in the placebo group) during follow-up. Follow-up evalutations were conducted at the first, 3rd and then at an interval of three months during 15 months. The clinical characteristics in both groups were comparable. The AF relapse was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: At 15-month follow-up, AF relapsed in 20 (39%) and 31 (65%) patients in the propafenone and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.015). In subgroup analysis, AF recurrence was significantly lower in the propafenone group than in the placebo group only in the recent onset AF patients with spontaneous conversion (21% vs. 61%, p = 0.01). However, the AF relapse rates were similar in patients with persistent AF and with recent AF who converted to sinus rhythm pharmacologically or electrically in the propafenone and placebo groups. Four patients on propafenone and one on placebo had adverse effects necessitating discontinuation of the drug (p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: At 15 months, propafenone seems to be superior to placebo for maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with recent onset or peristent AF. This superiority originates mainly from patients with recent onset AF in whom sinus rhythm occurred spontaneously. Its adverse effects are similar to placebo.     

Serial antiarrhythmic therapy: role of amiodarone in prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence--a lesson from the HOT CAFE Polish Study

Antiarrhythmic drug prophylaxis is known to improve long-term success of electrical cardioversion (CV) in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). This prospective study evaluates the efficacy of sequential antiarrhythmic drug therapy in sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance after successful elective CV in patients with persistent nonvalvular AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight patients (61+/-8 years old) with persistent AF underwent CV. Mean AF duration preceding CV was 268+/-99 days. Following SR restoration, patients were treated sequentially with either of the following antiarrhythmic drugs: propafenone, sotalol or disopyramide. Where arrhythmia recurred, patients received another CV and a new drug from the range defined above. Where such treatment failed, patients were loaded with 14.0- to 16.0-gram doses of amiodarone and a third CV was performed. If the first CV failed to restore SR, patients received a loading dose of amiodarone followed by another CV. When successful, amiodarone was administered on continuous basis. RESULTS: The first CV proved successful in 55.5% of patients. During 1-year of follow-up, 31 patients (43.7%) presented with SR were treated with one antiarrhythmic agent (median does not exist). Application of the second drug proved to be effective in 6 patients (15.0%; median 13 days). Amiodarone was administered as the third antiarrhythmic agent to patients who had AF recurrence on the first two antiarrhythmic agents (propafenone, sotalol or disopyramide). It proved to be effective in 18 patients (52.9%; median does not exist) remaining free from AF for a period of 1 year as of commencement of the sequential antiarrhythmic therapy. Fifty-seven patients, in whom the first CV was ineffective, received amiodarone. During the loading period, SR was restored in 7 patients (12.3%). The remaining 50 patients underwent repeated CV, with SR restored in 37 (74.0%) of them. Long-term amiodarone treatment maintained SR in 30 (68.2%) patients during the follow-up period. Amiodarone helped to maintain SR in a total of 56.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone seems to be the drug most effectively restoring and maintaining SR in patients with persistent AF resistant to CV and standard antiarrhythmic drug prophylaxis.     

Contemporary real life cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: Results from the multinational RHYTHM-AF study

Aims

Electrical and pharmacological cardioversion (ECV, PCV) are important treatment options for symptomatic patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation (AF). RHYTHM-AF is an international registry of present-day cardioversion providing information that is not currently available on country differences and acute and long-term arrhythmia outcomes of ECV and PCV.

Methods and results

3940 patients were enrolled, of whom 75% underwent CV. All patients were followed for 2 months. There were large variations concerning mode of CV used, ECV being heterogeneous. A choice of PCV drug depended on the clinical patient profile. Sinus rhythm was restored in 89.7% of patients by ECV and in 69.1% after PCV. Among patients not undergoing CV during admission, 34% spontaneously converted to sinus rhythm within 24 h. ECV was most successful in patients pretreated with antiarrhythmic drugs (mostly amiodarone). PCV was enhanced by class Ic antiarrhythmic drugs; conversion rate on amiodarone was similar to that seen with rate control drugs. Female patients and those with paroxysmal and first detected AF as well as those without previous ECV responded well to PCV. The median duration of hospital stay was 16.2 and 24.0 h for ECV and PCV patients, respectively. There were very few CV-related complications regardless of mode of CV. Chronic maintenance of sinus rhythm was enhanced in patients on chronic antiarrhythmic drugs, beta-blockers or inhibitors of the renin–angiotensin system.

Conclusions

Mode of CV varied significantly, but both PCV and ECV were safe and effective. Class Ic drugs were most effective conversion drugs, but amiodarone is used most frequently despite providing merely rate control rather than shorten time to conversion.     

Is vernakalant better or not compared with other treatments for conversion acute atrial fibrillation?

Vernakalant has proved to be more rapid in converting recent onset AF to sinus rhythm compared to placebo, amiodarone, propafenone and flecainide.     

Amiodarone in restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after unsuccessful direct-current cardioversion

Background: When direct-current (DC) cardioversion is used, sinus rhythm can be restored, at least temporarily, in 80–90% of patients with atrial fibrillation. However, there is a small but significant group of patients with chronic atrial fibrillation in whom DC cardioversion has failed to restore sinus rhythm. The value of antiarrhythmic drug pretreatment before DC cardioversion is still controversial. Hypothesis: The aim of our study was to assess (1) the effecti veness of repeat DC cardioversion in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after pretreatment with amiodarone, and (2) the efficacy of amiodarone in maintaining sinus rhythm after repeat cardioversion. Methods: Forty-nine patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after ineffective DC cardioversion were included in the study. Repeat DC cardioversion was performed after loading with oral amiodarone, 10–15 mg/kg body weight/day for a period necessary to achieve the cumulative dose of over 6.0 g. Results: Spontaneous conversion to sinus rhythm during amiodarone pretreatment was achieved in 9 of 49 patients (18%). Direct-current cardioversion was performed in 39 patients and sinus rhythm was achieved in 23 of these patients (59%). Mean heart rate decreased from 95 beats/min before to 68 beats/min after DC cardioversion (p<0.001). Systolic blood pressure significantly (p<0.05) decreased from 126 ± 23 to 108 ± 25 mmHg. Complications occurring in four patients just after electroconversion were well tolerated and of short duration. After 12 months, 52% of patients maintained sinus rhythm on low dose (200 mg/day) amiodarone therapy. Conclusion: Pretreatment with amiodarone and repeat DC cardioversion allows for restoration of sinus rhythm in about 65% of patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after first ineffective DC cardioversion. Direct-current cardioversion can be performed safely with the use of standard precautions in patients who are receiving amiodarone. At 12 months' follow-up, more than 50% of patients maintain sinus rhythm on low-dose amiodarone after successful repeat cardioversion.