Amiodarone in atrial fibrillation

Twenty-seven patients with atrial fibrillation without any concomitant conduction abnormality have been treated with oral amiodarone in a daily maintenance dose of 200 mg. The drug has been used for three purposes: 1) to block atrioventricular conduction, thereby decreasing the ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation (9 patients), 2) as prophylaxis against paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (8 patients), 3) as prophylaxis against recurrence of atrial fibrillation after DC conversion to sinus rhythm (13 patients). All patients were considered refractory to other antiarrhythmic drugs in these respects. In the second group, 4 of the 8 patients reported complete cessation of attacks and the others a marked reduction of the attack rate. In the third group, 10 of the 13 patients have maintained sinus rhythm for a longer period on treatment with amiodarone than with other drugs, resulting more than a triple prolongation of the time in sinus rhythm. In 3 patients the drug has been discontinued because of side-effects. In conclusion, amiodarone affords protection from episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, as well as from recurrence of atrial fibrillation after DC conversion to sinus rhythm. If the drug is ineffective in either of these respects, it may still be useful as a means of moderating the ventricular response in atrial fibrillation.     

Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators

BACKGROUND: The restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is a desirable goal in patients with atrial fibrillation, because the prevention of recurrences can improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that amiodarone in low doses may be more effective and safer than other agents in preventing recurrence, but this agent has not been tested in a large, randomized trial. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, multicenter trial to test the hypothesis that low doses of amiodarone would be more efficacious in preventing recurrent atrial fibrillation than therapy with sotalol or propafenone. We randomly assigned patients who had had at least one episode of atrial fibrillation within the previous six months to amiodarone or to sotalol or propafenone, given in an open-label fashion. The patients in the group assigned to sotalol or propafenone underwent a second randomization to determine whether they would receive sotalol or propafenone first; if the first drug was unsuccessful the second agent was prescribed. Loading doses of the drugs were administered and electrical cardioversion was performed (if necessary) within 21 days after randomization for all patients in both groups. The follow-up period began 21 days after randomization. The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Of the 403 patients in the study, 201 were assigned to amiodarone and 202 to either sotalol (101 patients) or propafenone (101 patients). After a mean of 16 months of follow-up, 71 of the patients who were assigned to amiodarone (35 percent) and 127 of those who were assigned to sotalol or propafenone (63 percent) had a recurrence of atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). Adverse events requiring the discontinuation of drug therapy occurred in 18 percent of the patients receiving amiodarone, as compared with 11 percent of those treated with sotalol or propafenone (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone is more effective than sotalol or propafenone for the prevention of recurrences of atrial fibrillation.