Moreover all the anti-arrhythmic agents that are used in treatment of AF were potentially pro-arrhythmic especially in patients with coronary artery disease and structurally abnormal heart .
Although atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen during daily cardiovascular physician practice , its management remained a challenge for cardiology physician as there was no single anti-arrhythmic agents proved to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and kept its effectiveness in maintaining sinus rhythm over long term .
Some of these drugs also have serious non cardiac side effects that limit its long term use in the management of atrial fibrillation .
Several new and investigational anti-arrhythmic agents are emerging but data supporting their effectiveness and safety are still limited .
A prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of sotalol, amiodarone, and digoxin for the reversion of new-onset atrial fibrillation.
STUDY OBJECTIVE A prospect i ve , r and omized controlled trial of new-onset atrial fibrillation was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of sotalol and amiodarone ( active treatment ) with rate control by digoxin alone for successful reversion to sinus rhythm at 48 hours . METHODS We prospect ively r and omly assigned 120 patients with atrial fibrillation of less than 24 hours ' duration to treatment with sotalol , amiodarone , or digoxin using a single intravenous dose followed by 48 hours of oral treatment . Patients had ECG monitoring for 48 hours , and time of reversion , adequacy of rate control , and numbers of adverse events were compared . After 48 hours , those still in atrial fibrillation underwent cardioversion according to a st and ardized protocol . After 48 hours of therapy and attempted cardioversion , the number of patients whose rhythms had successfully reverted were compared . RESULTS There was a significant reduction in the time to reversion with both sotalol ( 13 . 0+/-2.5 hours , P < .01 ) and amiodarone ( 18.1+/-2.9 hours , P < .05 ) treatment compared with digoxin only ( 26.9+/-3.4 hours ) . By 48 hours , the active treatment group was significantly more likely to have reverted to sinus rhythm than the rate control group ( 95 % versus 78 % , P < .05 ; risk ratio 5.4 , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 1.5 to 19.2 ) . In those patients whose rhythms did not revert to sinus rhythm , there was superior ventricular rate control in the sotalol group at both 24 and 48 hours compared with those who received either amiodarone or digoxin . There were also fewer adverse events in the active treatment group compared with the rate control group . CONCLUSION Immediate pharmacologic therapy for new-onset atrial fibrillation with class III antiarrhythmic drugs ( sotalol or amiodarone ) improves complication-free 48-hour reversion rates compared with rate control with digoxin
Moreover all the anti-arrhythmic agents that are used in treatment of AF were potentially pro-arrhythmic especially in patients with coronary artery disease and structurally abnormal heart .
Although atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen during daily cardiovascular physician practice , its management remained a challenge for cardiology physician as there was no single anti-arrhythmic agents proved to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and kept its effectiveness in maintaining sinus rhythm over long term .
Some of these drugs also have serious non cardiac side effects that limit its long term use in the management of atrial fibrillation .
Several new and investigational anti-arrhythmic agents are emerging but data supporting their effectiveness and safety are still limited .