Amiodarone vs. metoprolol succinate in HFrEF complicated with persistent atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: A prospective observational study

Abstract

Backgroundβ-blockers have been recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), but studies have shown that β-blockers do not reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF and AF.ObjectiveTo investigate the difference in efficacy between oral amiodarone and metoprolol succinate for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (pAF) with rapid ventricular response (RVR).MethodsPatients with HFrEF complicated with pAF with RVR treated in the People's Hospital of Chongqing Hechuan between March 2018 and March 2019 were enrolled in this prospective observational study. The primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and the first hospitalization for HF rate. The secondary outcomes were type B pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) before/after treatment, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before/after treatment, average heart rate (AhR), and the rate of sinus rhythm after 1 year of follow-up.ResultsA total of 242 patients with HFrEF complicated with pAF with RVR were enrolled and divided into amiodarone + perindopril + spironolactone+ routine drug (amiodarone group, n = 121) and metoprolol succinate + perindopril + spironolactone +routine drug (metoprolol succinate group, n = 121) according to their treatment strategy. Cardiovascular mortality (4.9 vs. 12.4%, HR: 2.500, 95%CI: 1.002–6.237, P = 0.040) and first hospitalization for HF (52.9 vs. 67.8%, HR: 1.281, 95%CI: 1.033–1.589, P = 0.024) were significantly lower in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group. The mean ventricular rate in the amiodarone group was significantly lower than in the metoprolol group (64.5 ± 3.2 vs. 72.4 ± 4.2, P < 0.001). After 1 year of follow-up, the sinus rhythm rate was significantly higher in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group (38.8 vs. 7.4%, HR: 0.191, 95%CI: 0.098–0.374, P < 0.001). The difference in proBNP (3,914.88 vs. 2,558.07, P < 0.001) and LVEF (−6.89 vs. −0.98, P < 0.001) before and after treatment was significantly higher in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group.ConclusionIn conclusion, in this prospective observational study, the amiodarone group had lower risk of cardiovascular death and the first hospitalization for HF than metoprolol in HFrEF and persistent atrial fibrillation (pAF) with RVR. The mechanism may be related to improved cardiac function, rhythm control and ventricular rate control.Registration numberChiCTR2200057816; Registered 7 March 2022–Retrospectively registered: http://www.medresman.org.cn/pub/cn/proj/projectshshow.aspx?proj=4222.

Effects of Moracizine Combined with Metoprolol on Hemodynamic Indices of the Left Atrium and Quality of Life in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

“…It was previously reported that metoprolol combined with amiodarone for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction and arrhythmia could improve the clinical efficacy and reduce the symptoms of palpitation and chest tightness caused by excessive heart rate [19]. In the present study, the overall rate of effective treatment was found to be significantly higher in the OG than in the CG (p < 0.05), indicating the moracizine and metoprolol combination was superior to metoprolol alone.…”