A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. Antiarrhythmic efficacy of azimilide in patients with atrial fibrillation. Maintenance of sinus rhythm after conversion to sinus rhythm. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. Maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation: an AFFIRM substudy of the first antiarrhythmic drug. Pilsicainide for conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm in chronic atrial fibrillation: a placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Efficacy of azimilide for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the presence and absence of structural heart disease. The Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart failure (WASH): a randomized trial comparing antithrombotic strategies for patients with heart failure. Optimal Frequency of Patient Monitoring and Intensity of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Valvular Heart Disease. Maintenance of sinus rhythm with oral d,l-sotalol therapy in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. d,l-Sotalol Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Study Group.
There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended.
                We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality.
                A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic.
                Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients.
                Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society Azimilide dihydrochloride (azimilide) is an investigational antiarrhythmic drug that has been tested in patients with a variety of arrhythmias. In patients with atrial fibrillation, it has shown excellent efficacy in some previous trials and minimal efficacy in others.
                Patients who had symptomatic atrial fibrillation for > 48 hours but < 6 months were eligible for this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Patients were admitted to a hospital and randomly assigned to receive either azimilide 125 mg or a matched placebo twice daily for 3 days and then once daily. Patients who were in sinus rhythm spontaneously or had sinus rhythm restored by electric cardioversion on day 4 were discharged from the hospital. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation was documented by electrocardiogram. In the primary efficacy analysis, time to recurrence in the 2 treatment groups was compared with the log-rank test in the subgroup of patients with structural heart disease. Safety was assessed as deaths, adverse events, and serious adverse events.
                A total of 446 patients were randomized in the study; 314 were in the subgroup with structural heart disease. The median time to arrhythmia recurrence in both treatment groups with structural heart disease was 13 days, and the difference between treatments was not significant (P = .4596, n = 314). The relative risk for recurrence (placebo:azimilide) was 1.104 (95% CI 0.849-1.436). There was 1 death in the placebo group and 3 in the azimilide group.
                Azimilide did not demonstrate clinically important or statistically significant efficacy in reducing the risk for arrhythmia recurrence in patients with structural heart disease who were in atrial fibrillation and converted to sinus rhythm. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of antiplatelet and moderate-intensity anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation associated with recognized risk factors or mitral stenosis.
                Warfarin was more effective than aspirin in preventing stroke in these patients; combined therapy with low anticoagulant intensity was ineffective. Mitral stenosis patients were not investigated.
                We performed a multicenter randomized trial in 1,209 patients at risk. The intermediate-risk group included patients with risk factors or age >60 years: 242 received the cyclooxygenase inhibitor triflusal, 237 received acenocumarol, and 235 received a combination of both. The high-risk group included patients with prior embolism or mitral stenosis: 259 received anticoagulants and 236 received the combined therapy. Median follow-up was 2.76 years. Primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal stroke or systemic embolism.
                Primary outcome was lower in the combined therapy than in the anticoagulant arm in both the intermediate- (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI)0.12 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) and the high-risk group (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.96]; p = 0.03). Primary outcome plus severe bleeding was lower with combined therapy in the intermediate-risk group. Nonvalvular and mitral stenosis patients had similar embolic event rates during anticoagulant therapy.
                The combined antiplatelet plus moderate-intensity anticoagulation therapy significantly decreased the vascular events compared with anticoagulation alone and proved to be safe in atrial fibrillation patients. This study evaluated the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).
                The most effective and safest antiarrhythmic drug for the treatment of AF is unknown.
                The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study compared two treatment strategies--rate control and rhythm control--in patients with AF and risk factors for stroke or death. This substudy, performed in patients randomized to rhythm control, compared different antiarrhythmic drugs by randomly assigning the first drug treatment to: 1) amiodarone, 2) sotalol, or 3) a class I drug. The primary end point was the proportion of patients alive, in sinus rhythm, with no additional cardioversions and still taking the assigned drug at one year. Comparisons were made between patients eligible for each of three drug pairs.
                At one year, in 222 patients randomized between amiodarone and class I agents, 62% were successfully treated with amiodarone, compared with 23% taking class I agents (p < 0.001). In 256 patients randomized between amiodarone and sotalol, 60% versus 38% were successfully treated, respectively (p = 0.002). In 183 patients randomized between sotalol and class I agents, 34% versus 23% were successfully treated, respectively (p = 0.488), although this portion of the substudy was stopped early when amiodarone was shown to be better than class I agents. Sinus rhythm was achieved in nearly 80% of patients at one-year follow-up with serial therapy. Adverse effects were common.
                Amiodarone was more effective at one year than either sotalol or class I agents for the strategy of maintenance of sinus rhythm without cardioversion. Pilsicainide is a newly synthesized antiarrhythmic agent with class Ic properties. Various antiarrhythmic agents have been used to convert atrial fibrillation (AF) to sinus rhythm or decrease the rate of relapse of AF.
                We randomly assigned 62 patients with chronic AF to oral treatment of either a placebo (10 patients) or 150 mg/day of pilsicainide (52 patients) for 4 weeks before electrical cardioversion. Before oral administration of pilsicainide, 41 patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography to investigate whether there was thrombus formation in the heart chambers. Patients without pharmacologic defibrillation underwent direct current cardioversion to restore sinus rhythm. After successful cardioversion, all patients continued to receive pilsicainide and were monitored for up to 2 years.
                Before cardioversion, 11 patients in the pilsicainide group (21%) reverted to sinus rhythm. No patients in the placebo group reverted to sinus rhythm. Direct current cardioversion was performed in 51 patients; however, 8 patients were not converted to sinus rhythm (5 patients receiving pilsicainide, 3 patients receiving placebo), and 3 patients needed intracardiac cardioversion to convert to sinus rhythm. Asymptomatic bradyarrhythmias were observed in 5 patients in the pilsicainide group. During the follow-up period, 33 patients (71%) in the pilsicainide group remained in sinus rhythm at 1 month; this number decreased to 23 patients (49%) at 3 months, 20 (43%) at 6 months, 16 (34%) at 12 months, 16 (34%) at 18 months, and 16 (34%) at 24 months. All patients receiving placebo continued to receive placebo after the cardioversion, and AF recurred a few days after cardioversion in all cases. No independent discriminant variables were identified in the groups between maintenance and nonmaintenance of sinus rhythm. Although no serious side effects regarding pilsicainide have been documented, one patient died of acute myocardial infarction, most likely not related to pilsicainide administration.
                Pilsicainide is effective in restoring or maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with chronic AF lasting longer than an average duration of 22 months. No major adverse effects were observed. Azimilide hydrochloride (azimilide), an investigational antiarrhythmic drug, has shown variable efficacy in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to assess its efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal AF and heart disease. Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF were screened for 1 month by transtelephonic monitoring. After recording 1 episode of AF in the screening period, they were randomized to receive azimilide 125 mg or placebo once daily. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease (CHF/CHD). A maximum of 220 patients without CHF/CHD were randomized, with the remainder having CHF/CHD. Patients with CHF/CHD were monitored for 3 days during loading. The primary efficacy analysis was the time to the first symptomatic recurrence of AF in the CHF/CHD group. Secondary analyses were the time to the first recurrence in the entire population and the time to the first recurrence in those with significant structural heart disease. The median time to recurrence of AF in the CHF/CHD group was 10 days in the 2 treatment arms. Nonsignificant trends were seen toward efficacy of azimilide in the CHF/CHD group (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.70, p=0.087), structural heart disease group (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.56, p=0.11), and overall group (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.49, p=0.053). No patient died. In conclusion, azimilide showed a nonsignificant trend toward efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with AF. Heart failure is commonly associated with vascular disease and a high rate of athero-thrombotic events, but the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy are unknown.
                The current study was an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing no antithrombotic therapy, aspirin (300 mg/day), and warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.5) in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring diuretic therapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and inform the design of a larger outcome study. The primary clinical outcome was death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.
                Two hundred seventy-nine patients were randomized and 627 patient-years exposure were accumulated over a mean follow-up time of 27 +/- 1 months. Twenty-six (26%), 29 (32%), and 23 (26%) patients randomized to no antithrombotic treatment, aspirin, and warfarin, respectively, reached the primary outcome (ns). There were trends to a worse outcome among those randomized to aspirin for a number of secondary outcomes. Significantly (P =.044) more patients randomized to aspirin were hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, especially worsening heart failure.
                The Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart failure (WASH) provides no evidence that aspirin is effective or safe in patients with heart failure. The benefits of warfarin for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm have not been established. Antithrombotic therapy in patients with heart failure is not evidence based but commonly contributes to polypharmacy. The antithrombotic effect of oral anticoagulation therapy and the incidence of anticoagulant-related bleeding complications are both closely correlated with the intensity of treatment. The optimal intensity of oral anticoagulation for an individual patient is the target INR that results in the lowest incidence of thromboembolic plus bleeding complications. For patients with native valve lesions, one must consider the cardiac morphology and pathophysiology, for example, the etiology of the disease, left atrial diameters, loss of active atrial contraction (atrial fibrillation), left ventricular pump function, and left ventricular diameters, to determine an optimal INR target. In patients with prosthetic devices, the "thrombogenicity" of the heart valve prosthesis is an additional risk factor for intracardiac thrombus formation and thromboembolic episodes. This "thrombogenicity" may vary significantly from device to device. INR self-testing improves the overall prognosis of patients on lifelong oral anticoagulation therapy because patients remain more precisely within that target therapeutic INR range. For most patients under phenprocoumon, one to two INR measurements per week are a sufficient frequency to provide a stable intensity of anticoagulation. Currently d,l-sotalol is widely used to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter, although a randomized dose-response study has not previously been conducted to guide therapy for this indication. This study summarizes findings of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy, safety, and dose-response relation of 3 fixed doses of d,l-sotalol (80, 120, and 160 mg twice daily) for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in 253 patients with atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. All patients were in sinus rhythm at randomization. Treatment (69 patients on placebo, 59 on 80 mg, 63 on 120 mg, and 62 on 160 mg given twice daily) was continued for 12 months or until documented recurrence of symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring was used to detect symptomatic recurrences. Demographic characteristics were not different in the 4 groups. Structural heart disease was present in 57% of patients. Patients with a history of heart failure were excluded. The time from randomization to symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence was significantly longer in the 2 higher d,l-sotalol dose groups than in the placebo group. The median times to recurrence were 27, 106, 229, and 175 days for the placebo, 80, 120, and 160 mg groups, respectively. There were no deaths or cases of torsade de pointes, sustained ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation reported. Thus, d,l-sotalol appeared to be both safe and effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Further, the 120-mg twice daily dose appeared to provide the most favorable benefit and/or risk.
Based on the two major randomised trials (HELAS 2006; WASH 2004), there is no convincing evidence that oral anticoagulant therapy modifies mortality or vascular events in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. Although oral anticoagulation is indicated in certain groups of patients with heart failure (for example atrial fibrillation), the data available does not support its routine use in heart failure patients who remain in sinus rhythm. A large randomised trial of warfarin in heart failure patients in sinus rhythm is currently in progress and data from this trial will be a useful addition to this topic.