Rate Control and Sinus Rhythm Maintenance in Atrial Fibrillation

Stafford, Randall S.; Robson, Deborah C.; Misra, Bismruta; Ruskin, Jeremy N.; Singer, Daniel E.

doi:10.1001/archinte.158.19.2144

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study demonstrates that agents used for ventricular rate control remain the most commonly reported medications used for AF, but shows that digoxin use significantly declined. Digoxin use was reported in 76% of patients with AF in 1980-1981, 11 but was reported in only 37% of patient visits by 1999-2000 in our study. This change may reflect reports that digoxin is less effective than ␤-blockers or calcium channel blockers in controlling effort-related tachycardia.…”

Section: Commentcontrasting

confidence: 68%

National Trends in Antiarrhythmic and Antithrombotic Medication Use in Atrial Fibrillation

Fang

Stafford²,

Ruskin³

et al. 2004

Arch Intern Med

Self Cite

208

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Commentcontrasting

confidence: 68%

National Trends in Antiarrhythmic and Antithrombotic Medication Use in Atrial Fibrillation

Fang

Stafford²,

Ruskin³

et al. 2004

Arch Intern Med

Self Cite

208

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, its general use remains limited due to serious side effects extending beyond the cardiovascular system. On the other hand, the advantages it offers in cardiovascular treatments, such as lack of negative inotropic effect, improvement of coronary blood flow and low-risk rate of drug-induced serious ventricular arrhythmia, seem to be underestimated among clinicians [2, 14, 15]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serial Antiarrhythmic Therapy: Role of Amiodarone in Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence – A Lesson from the HOT CAFE Polish Study

Kosior

Opolski²,

Wożakowska−Kapłon³

et al. 2005

Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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- to16.0-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.

show abstract

“…Additionally, the direct cost of managing patients with other cardiovascular diseases is significantly higher where AF is involved as co-morbidity [3,4]. The therapeutic goal in patients with AF may be defined as either restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) through mainly antiarrhythmic therapy or allowing AF to persist and develop into permanent arrhythmia with controlled ventricular rate [5,6]. In standard practice antiarrhythmic drugs and electrical cardioversion are used to control SR, relieve symptoms and, where possible, prevent disease progression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost comparison of rhythm and rate control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation

Pietrasik

Kosior

Niewada

et al. 2007

International Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rate Control and Sinus Rhythm Maintenance in Atrial Fibrillation

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

National Trends in Antiarrhythmic and Antithrombotic Medication Use in Atrial Fibrillation

National Trends in Antiarrhythmic and Antithrombotic Medication Use in Atrial Fibrillation

Serial Antiarrhythmic Therapy: Role of Amiodarone in Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence – A Lesson from the HOT CAFE Polish Study

The cost comparison of rhythm and rate control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About