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 .
Dronedarone for maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation or flutter.
BACKGROUND Amiodarone is effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation but is associated with potentially serious toxic effects .  Dronedarone is a new antiarrhythmic agent pharmacologically related to amiodarone but developed to reduce the risk of side effects . METHODS In two identical multicenter , double-blind , r and omized trials , one conducted in Europe ( Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00259428 [ Clinical Trials.gov ] ) and one conducted in the United States , Canada , Australia , South Africa , and Argentina ( termed the non-European trial , NCT00259376 [ Clinical Trials.gov ] ) , we evaluated the efficacy of dronedarone , with 828 patients receiving 400 mg of the drug twice daily and 409 patients receiving placebo .  Rhythm was monitored transtelephonically on days 2 , 3 , and 5 ; at 3 , 5 , 7 , and 10 months ; during recurrence of arrhythmia ; and at nine scheduled visits during a 12-month period . The primary end point was the time to the first recurrence of atrial fibrillation or flutter . RESULTS In the European trial , the median times to the recurrence of arrhythmia were 41 days in the placebo group and 96 days in the dronedarone group ( P=0.01 ) . The corresponding duration s in the non-European trial were 59 and 158 days ( P=0.002 ) . At the recurrence of arrhythmia in the European trial , the mean ( + /-SD ) ventricular rate was 117.5+/-29.1 beats per minute in the placebo group and 102.3+/-24.7 beats per minute in the dronedarone group ( P<0.001 ) ; the corresponding rates in the non-European trial were 116.6+/-31.9 and 104.6+/-27.1 beats per minute ( P<0.001 ) . Rates of pulmonary toxic effects and of thyroid and liver dysfunction were not significantly increased in the dronedarone group . CONCLUSIONS Dronedarone was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm and in reducing the ventricular rate during recurrence of arrhythmia
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 .