JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2021
Comparative Efficacy of Dofetilide Versus Amiodarone in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shantha Ghanshyam, Chugh Aman, Crawford Thomas, Latchamsetty Rakesh, Ghanbari Hamid, Ghannam Michael, Liang Jackson, Batul Atiqa, Chung Eugene, Saeed Mohammed, Cunnane Ryan, Jongnarangsin Krit, Bogun Frank, Pelosi Frank, Morady Fred, Oral Hakan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The study's goal was to compare the efficacy and safety of dofetilide (DOF) versus amiodarone (AMIO) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
BACKGROUND: Comparative efficacy of DOF versus AMIO in patients with AF has not been well established. In addition, proarrhythmia has been a concern with DOF therapy.
METHODS: Rhythm control was attempted by using DOF in 657 consecutive patients (mean age 72 ± 9 years; 35% women) with AF (n = 528) or atrial flutter and AF (n = 129) between January 2014 and December 2018.
RESULTS: DOF was successfully initiated in 573 (87%) of 657 patients, including 510 (89%) with persistent AF and 63 (11%) with paroxysmal AF. During a mean follow-up of 19 ± 7 months, sinus rhythm was maintained in 361 (63%) of the 573 DOF-treated patients. At 12 months, patients on DOF had a similar likelihood of experiencing recurrent atrial arrhythmias compared with the 2,476 consecutive patients treated with AMIO for rhythm control during the study period (37% vs. 39%; p = 0.56). The efficacy of DOF and AMIO was also similar in specific subgroups of patients, including patients >75 years of age, with a low left ventricular ejection fraction, obesity, renal insufficiency, and prior catheter ablation for AF. Among patients with atypical atrial flutter, likelihood of recurrent atrial flutter was similar between the DOF (43 of 108 [40%]) and AMIO (211 of 555 [38%]; p = 0.69) groups.
CONCLUSIONS: When properly initiated and monitored, DOF has efficacy comparable to that of amiodarone for rhythm control in patients with AF.
BACKGROUND: Comparative efficacy of DOF versus AMIO in patients with AF has not been well established. In addition, proarrhythmia has been a concern with DOF therapy.
METHODS: Rhythm control was attempted by using DOF in 657 consecutive patients (mean age 72 ± 9 years; 35% women) with AF (n = 528) or atrial flutter and AF (n = 129) between January 2014 and December 2018.
RESULTS: DOF was successfully initiated in 573 (87%) of 657 patients, including 510 (89%) with persistent AF and 63 (11%) with paroxysmal AF. During a mean follow-up of 19 ± 7 months, sinus rhythm was maintained in 361 (63%) of the 573 DOF-treated patients. At 12 months, patients on DOF had a similar likelihood of experiencing recurrent atrial arrhythmias compared with the 2,476 consecutive patients treated with AMIO for rhythm control during the study period (37% vs. 39%; p = 0.56). The efficacy of DOF and AMIO was also similar in specific subgroups of patients, including patients >75 years of age, with a low left ventricular ejection fraction, obesity, renal insufficiency, and prior catheter ablation for AF. Among patients with atypical atrial flutter, likelihood of recurrent atrial flutter was similar between the DOF (43 of 108 [40%]) and AMIO (211 of 555 [38%]; p = 0.69) groups.
CONCLUSIONS: When properly initiated and monitored, DOF has efficacy comparable to that of amiodarone for rhythm control in patients with AF.