Background
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and amiodarone are widely used in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The DOACs are P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome p-450 (CYP3A4) substrates. Direct oral anticoagulant levels may be increased by the concomitant use of potent dual P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as amiodarone, which can potentially translate into adverse clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of drug–drug interaction by the concomitant use of DOACs and amiodarone.Methods
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Embase, limiting our search to randomized controlled trials of patients with atrial fibrillation that have compared DOACs versus warfarin for prophylaxis of stroke or systemic embolism, to analyze the impact on stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and intracranial bleeding risk in patients with concomitant use of amiodarone. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The fixed effects model was used owing to heterogeneity (I2) < 25%.Results
Four trials with a total of 71,683 patients were analyzed, from which 5% of patients (n = 3212) were concomitantly taking DOAC and amiodarone. We found no statistically significant difference for any of the clinical outcomes (stroke or systemic embolism [RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.06], major bleeding [RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.07], or intracranial bleeding [RR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.68-1.78]) among patients taking DOAC and amiodarone versus DOAC without amiodarone.Conclusion
On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis, co-administration of DOACs and amiodarone, a dual P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitor, does not seem to affect efficacy or safety outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation. 相似文献Purpose
We assessed conventional and reversed U curve methods for mapping and ablation of RVOT-type VAs.Methods
Single-center data were reviewed from consecutive cases of symptomatic VAs of RVOT-type origin that were mapped and ablated successfully using conventional method in RVOT (pulmonary artery might be included) from January 2014 to December 2015 (cohort 1, n?=?75) or conventional method in RVOT and reversed U curve in PSC (for first ablation attempt) from January 2016 to March 2017 (cohort 2, n?=?60).Results
At least 90% of RVOT-VAs could be eliminated using conventional method in RVOT or reversed U curve in PSC. For RVOT-VAs, if the earliest activation site was in midposterior free wall, midposterior septal side of RVOT, or anterior free wall/septal side of RVOT with conventional method, it was likely eliminated in right, left, and anterior PSC with reversed U curve method, respectively. Nearly the same earliest potential in almost the same region could be recorded by both methods. Compared with conventional method, the reversed U curve method showed better catheter stability and contact force during mapping and ablation, and showed distinctive features in presystolic potential recording, unipolar mapping, and ablation response.Conclusions
Most of RVOT-VAs could be eliminated using conventional method in RVOT or reversed U curve in PSC. However, the reversed U curve method has superiority in catheter stability and contact force, especially for VAs form free wall of RVOT.Areas covered: This review outlines the pros and cons of stopping oral anticoagulation after catheter ablation. Major databases such as Pubmed or Embase were used. The most relevant articles published were used along with major recommendations of society guidelines. Authors will also discuss different proposed mechanisms of atrial fibrillation and more importantly future directions in this topic.
Expert commentary: The use of oral anticoagulants after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is debatable; however, based on current guidelines, we support the use of oral anticoagulants after the blanking period of catheter ablation. Noteworthy is that although the risk of bleeding can be fatal in some cases, it does not outweigh the risk of a disabling stroke. 相似文献