Soraya Samii

Old and new antiarrhythmic drugs for converting and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation: comparative efficacy and results of trials

In managing atrial fibrillation (AF), the main therapeutic strategies include rate control, termination of the arrhythmia, and the prevention of recurrences and thromboembolic events. Safety and efficacy considerations are important in optimizing the choice of an antiarrhythmic drug for the treatment of AF. Recently approved antiarrhythmics, such as dofetilide, and promising investigational drugs, such as azimilide and dronedarone, may change the treatment landscape for AF. For medical conversion of recent-onset AF, class IC antiarrhythmic drugs, administered as an oral bolus, have been demonstrated to be the most efficacious pharmacologic conversion agents. Intravenous ibutilide and oral dofetilide both have efficacies superior to placebo in controlled trials for converting persistent AF. Comparative trials in paroxysmal AF have demonstrated that flecainide, propafenone, quinidine, and sotalol are equally effective in preventing recurrences of AF. Amiodarone has been demonstrated to be more efficacious than propafenone or sotalol in the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation. In persistent AF, twice-daily dofetilide has been shown to be as or more effective than low-dose sotalol given twice daily for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with AF. Trials have demonstrated that subjective adverse effects are less frequent with class IC drugs, sotalol, and dofetilide compared with such drugs as quinidine. In patients without structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone, and D,L-sotalol are the initial drugs of choice, given their reasonable efficacy, low incidence of subjective side effects, and lack of significant end-organ toxicity. Treating AF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction can be difficult because of associated electrophysiologic derangements, potential proarrhythmic concerns, and negative inotropic effects of antiarrhythmics. Some data exist suggesting that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers can prevent AF either by preventing atrial dilation and stretch-induced arrhythmias or by blocking the renin-angiotensin system. In post-myocardial infarction patients, D,L-sotalol, dofetilide, and amiodarone-and in congestive heart failure patients, amiodarone and dofetilide-have demonstrated neutral effects on survival in controlled trials. In the Congestive Heart Failure Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy (CHF-STAT), amiodarone lowered the frequency of AF development and improved left ventricular ejection fraction over time. In CHF-STAT, there was lower mortality in patients who converted from AF to sinus rhythm. Dofetilide decreased rehospitalization for congestive heart failure in the Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality on Dofetilide (DIAMOND) trials. Neutral effects on survival and favorable hemodynamics have positioned amiodarone and dofetilide as the antiarrhythmics of choice in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. In post-myocardial infarction patients, sotalol is an additional agent to consider for treatment of AF in this setting.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Prognostic Significance and Management

AF in Heart Failure. Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure are commonly occurring cardiac disorders that often exist concomitantly. The prognostic significance of the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation, as an independent risk factor, in patients with heart failure remains controversial. Antiarrhythmic drugs with good hemodynamic profiles and neutral effects on survival are preferred treatments for converting atrial fibrillation and maintaining sinus rhythm. Other standard therapies for congestive heart failure, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers also have a role in the treatment of these coexisting disease states. The article presents an overview of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reviews the prevalence, prognostic significance, and efficacy of various antiarrhythmic agents for the conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm.

Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure

Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure are commonly occurring cardiac disorders that often exist concomitantly. The prognostic significance of the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation, as an independent risk factor, in patients with heart failure remains controversial. Antiarrhythmic drugs with good hemodynamic profiles and neutral effects on survival are preferred treatments for converting atrial fibrillation and maintaining sinus rhythm. Other standard therapies for congestive heart failure, such as angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta‐blockers also have a role in the treatment of these coexisting disease states. The article presents an overview of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reviews the prevalence, prognostic significance, and efficacy of various antiarrhythmic agents for the conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. S281‐S286, December 2003, Suppl.)

A Review of Clinical Trials Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Newer Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Atrial Fibrillation

Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of anti- arrhythmic drugs for terminating atrial fibrillation have demonstrated that rate control drugs have little to no added efficacy compared to placebo; however, spontaneous conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation is common. Antiarrhythmic drugs such as oral dofetilide, oral bolus-flecainide and propafenone and intravenous ibutilide all have a role in terminating atrial fibrillation. Active comparator trials have demonstrated that amiodarone is more efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm than propafenone and sotalol. Multiple trials have demonstrated the safety of amiodarone, sotalol, dofetilide and azimilide in a post-myocardial infarction population and amiodarone and dofetilide in a congestive heart failure population. Newer antiarrhythmic agents, some with novel mechanisms of action, will add to the pharmacologic armamentarium in treating atrial fibrillation.

Vernakalant – a promising therapy for conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation

Background: This paper reviews the pharmacology, electrophysiology, efficacy and safety of intravenous and oral vernakalant hydrochloride (RSD-1235), a novel antiarrhythmic drug that has relative atrial selectivity by blocking potassium channels that are present in the atria and not the ventricle. In addition, this drug has important rate-dependent sodium channel blocking properties. Methods: Currently, there few commercially approved intravenous antiarrhythmic agents for the conversion of atrial fibrillation. Intravenously, vernakalant has been demonstrated to be useful in terminating over 50% of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (< 7 days duration) with minimal ventricular proarrhythmic effects. Intravenous vernakalant is not effective in terminating atrial flutter. Oral vernakalant is currently undergoing study and appears to be effective in suppressing atrial fibrillation recurrences after cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation. Results/conclusion: Intravenous vernakalant has the potential to be an important agent in the conversion of atrial fibrillation and oral vernakalant may be a useful drug for the suppression of atrial fibrillation recurrences.

Safety and Efficacy of Dronedarone in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter

Dronedarone is an amiodarone analog but differs structurally from amiodarone in that the iodine moiety was removed and a methane-sulfonyl group was added. These modifications reduced thyroid and other end-organ adverse effects and makes dronedarone less lipophilic, shortening its half-life. Dronedarone has been shown to prevent atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFl) recurrences in several multi-center trials. In addition to its rhythm control properties, dronedarone has rate control properties and slows the ventricular response during AF. Dronedarone is approved in Europe for rhythm and rate control indications. In patients with decompensated heart failure, dronedarone treatment increased mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations. However, when dronedarone was used in elderly high risk AF/AFl patients excluding such high risk heart failure, cardiovascular hospitalizations were significantly reduced and the drug was approved in the USA for this indication in 2009 by the Food and Drug Administration. Updated guidelines suggest dronedarone as a front-line antiarrhythmic in many patients with AF/Fl but caution that the drug should not be used in patients with advanced heart failure. In addition, the recent results of the PALLAS trial suggest that dronedarone should not be used in the long-term treatment of patients with permanent AF.

Dofetilide Reduces the Frequency of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapies

Dofetilide Reduces VT/VF and ICD Therapies. Background: Patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ventricular arrhythmias leading to ICD therapies have poor clinical outcomes and quality of life. Antiarrhythmic agents and catheter ablation are needed to control these arrhythmias. Dofetilide has only been approved for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The role of dofetilide in the control of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with an ICD has not been established.

New antiarrhythmic treatment of atrial fibrillation

Antiarrhythmic pharmaceutical development for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is moving in several directions. The efficacy of existing drugs, such as carvedilol, for rate control and, possibly, suppression of AF, is more appreciated. Efforts are being made to modify existing agents, such as amiodarone, in an attempt to ameliorate safety and adverse effect concerns. This has resulted in promising data from the deiodinated amiodarone analog, dronedarone, and further work with celivarone and ATI-2042. In an attempt to minimize ventricular proarrhythmia, atrial selective drugs, such as intravenous vernakalant, have demonstrated efficacy in terminating AF in addition to promising data in suppression recurrences when used orally. Several other atrial selective drugs are being developed by multiple manufacturers. Other novel therapeutic mechanisms, such as drugs that enhance GAP junction conduction, are being developed to achieve more effective drug therapy than is offered by existing compounds. Finally, nonantiarrhythmic drugs, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, high-mobility group coenzyme A enzyme inhibitors and omega-3 fatty acids/fish oil, appear to have a role in suppressing AF in certain patient subtypes. Future studies will clarify the role of these drugs in treating AF.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure are very common cardiac disorders, and both are associated with symptoms, significant morbidity, and mortality. Studies have attempted to determine the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. Whether atrial fibrillation is an independent risk factor of mortality remains controversial. Multiple trials using either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapies in an attempt to manage atrial fibrillation have been developed. The purposes of this review are to present an overview of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and to discuss the prevalence, prognostic significance, complications, mechanisms, and trials that have formed the therapies presently used.

Clinical Efficacy of Dofetilide for the Treatment of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND Atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) including atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), and atrial tachycardia represent a clinical challenge in the adult with congenital heart disease (CHD). Dofetilide (D) is a rapidly activating delayed rectifier potassium channel (IKr) blocker effective in pharmacological conversion and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with AF and AFL. There is limited knowledge regarding the role of D in adults with CHD. METHODS Safety and efficacy of D was evaluated in a consecutive group of thirteen adult patients (age 40 ± 11; six women) with CHD and refractory AT. RESULTS Ten patients had persistent (four AFL, one AF, and five atrial tachycardia) and three paroxysmal (one AF and two atrial tachycardia) AT. All patients were symptomatic during tachycardia, 12 patients had previously failed 2 ± 1 antiarrhythmic drugs. Mean systemic ventricular ejection fraction was 55 ± 9%; baseline QRS complex duration was 129 ± 45 ms (>120 ms in six patients). Patients were followed on D for 33 ± 39 months (median 16). Among 10 patients with persistent AT, seven patients (70%) pharmacologically converted to sinus rhythm on D and three patients (30%) required direct current cardioversion. Two patients (15.4%) experienced complete arrhythmia suppression, and seven (53.8%) experienced significant clinical improvement with sporadic recurrences; average time to recurrence was 5.5 ± 3.5 months. One patient developed torsade de pointes during loading, and the drug was discontinued. D was discontinued in five (38.5%) other patients due to recurrence of AT (n = 4) and renal failure (n = 1). Corrected QT interval (QTc) increased from 452 ± 61 to 480 ± 49 ms (P = .04) and corrected JT interval (JTc) from 323 ± 39 to 341 ± 33 ms (P = .09). CONCLUSIONS D should be considered a pharmacologic alternative when adult patients with CHD develop AT. D does not depress conduction, sinus node, or ventricular function but needs close monitoring for potential ventricular pro-arrhythmia.