| 1. |
- Camm, A. John, et al.
(författare)
-
AIM-AF : A Physician Survey in the United States and Europe
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 2047-9980. ; 11:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Guideline recommendations are the accepted reference for selection of therapies for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to understand physicians' treatment practices and adherence to guidelines.Methods and Results: The AIM-AF (Antiarrhythmic Medication for Atrial Fibrillation) study was an online survey of clinical cardiologists and electrophysiologists that was conducted in the United States and Europe (N=629). Respondents actively treated >= 30 patients with AF who received drug therapy, and had received or were referred for ablation every 3 months. The survey comprised 96 questions on physician demographics, AF types, and treatment practices. Overall, 54% of respondents considered guidelines to be the most important nonpatient factor influencing treatment choice. Across most queried comorbidities, amiodarone was selected by 60% to 80% of respondents. Other nonadherent usage included sotalol by 21% in patients with renal impairment; dofetilide initiation (16%, United States only) outside of hospital; class Ic agents by 6% in coronary artery disease; and dronedarone by 8% in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Additionally, rhythm control strategies were frequently chosen in asymptomatic AF (antiarrhythmic drugs [AADs], 35%; ablation, 8%) and subclinical AF (AADs, 38%; ablation, 13%). Despite guideline algorithms emphasizing safety first, efficacy (48%) was selected as the most important consideration for AAD choice, followed by safety (34%).Conclusions: Despite surveyed clinicians recognizing the importance of guidelines, nonadherence was frequently observed. While deviation may be reasonable in selected patients, in general, nonadherence has the potential to compromise patient safety. These findings highlight an underappreciation of the safe use of AADs, emphasizing the need for interventions to support optimal AAD selection.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Priori, Silvia G., et al.
(författare)
-
Task Force on Sudden Cardiac Death, European Society of Cardiology
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 4:1, s. 3-18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Society of Cardiology has convened a Task Force on Sudden Cardiac Death in order to provide a comprehensive, educational document on this important topic. The main document has been published in the European Heart Journal in August 2001[1]. The Task Force has now summarized the most important clinical issues on sudden cardiac death and provided tables with recommendations for risk stratification and for prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death. The present recommendations are specifically intended to encourage the development and revision of national guidelines on prevention of sudden cardiac death. The common challenge for cardiologists, physicians of other medical specialties and health professionals throughout Europe is to realize the potential for sudden cardiac death prevention and to contribute to public health efforts to reduce its burden.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Pundi, Krishna, et al.
(författare)
-
Dronedarone Versus Sotalol in Antiarrhythmic Drug-Naive Veterans With Atrial Fibrillation
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. - 1941-3149. ; 16:8, s. 456-467
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Sotalol and dronedarone are both used for maintenance of sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, while sotalol requires initial monitoring for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia, dronedarone does not. These treatments can be used in comparable patients, but their safety and effectiveness have not been compared head to head. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety using data from a large health care system. METHODS: Using Veterans Health Administration data, we identified 11 296 antiarrhythmic drug-naive patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed dronedarone or sotalol in 2012 or later. We excluded patients with prior conduction disease, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, ventricular arrhythmia, cancer, renal failure, liver disease, or heart failure. We used natural language processing to identify and compare baseline left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment arms. We used 1:1 propensity score matching, based on patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and Cox regression to compare strategies. To evaluate residual confounding, we performed falsification analysis with nonplausible outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort comprised 6212 patients (3106 dronedarone and 3106 sotalol; mean [±SD] age, 71±10 years; 2.5% female; mean [±SD] CHA2DS2-VASC, 2±1.3). The mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 55±11 and 58±10 for dronedarone and sotalol users, correspondingly. Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, did not demonstrate a significant association with risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.21]) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68-1.16]). However, dronedarone was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.74]) and symptomatic bradycardia (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.87]). The primary findings were stable across sensitivity analyses. Falsification analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, was associated with a lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events and conduction disorders while having no difference in risk of incident cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. These observational data provide the basis for prospective efficacy and safety trials.
|
|
| 9. |
- Reiffel, James A., et al.
(författare)
-
Real-world utilization of the pill-in-the-pocket method for terminating episodes of atrial fibrillation : data from the multinational Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Europace. - : Oxford University Press. - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 25:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Episodes may stop spontaneously (paroxysmal AF); may terminate only via intervention (persistent AF); or may persist indefinitely (permanent AF) (see European and American guidelines, referenced below, for more precise definitions). Recently, there has been renewed interest in an approach to terminate AF acutely referred to as 'pill-in-the-pocket' (PITP). The PITP is recognized in both the US and European guidelines as an effective option using an oral antiarrhythmic drug for acute conversion of acute/recent-onset AF. However, how PITP is currently used has not been systematically evaluated.Methods and results: The recently published Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey included questions regarding current PITP usage, stratified by US vs. European countries surveyed, by representative countries within Europe, and by cardiologists vs. electrophysiologists. This manuscript presents the data from this planned sub-study. Our survey revealed that clinicians in both the USA and Europe consider PITP in about a quarter of their patients, mostly for recent-onset AF with minimal or no structural heart disease (guideline appropriate). However, significant deviations exist. See the Graphical abstract for a summary of the data.Conclusion: Our findings highlight the frequent use of PITP and the need for further physician education about appropriate and optimal use of this strategy.
|
|
| 10. |
- Singh, Jagmeet P., et al.
(författare)
-
Dronedarone versus sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation : A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cardiology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0160-9289 .- 1932-8737. ; 46:6, s. 589-597
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThere are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). HypothesisWe hypothesized that dronedarone and sotalol, two commonly prescribed VW class III AADs with class II properties, have different safety and efficacy effects in patients with nonpermanent AF. MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE (R), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 15, 2021 (NCT05279833). Clinical trials and observational studies that evaluated safety and efficacy of dronedarone or sotalol in adults with AF were included. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to quantify comparative safety and efficacy. Where feasible, we performed sensitivity analyses by including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ResultsOf 3581 records identified through database searches, 37 unique studies (23 RCTs, 13 observational studies, and 1 nonrandomized trial) were included in the NMA. Dronedarone was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus sotalol (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% credible interval, CrI: 0.19, 0.74]). The association was numerically similar in the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.46 [95% CrI: 0.21, 1.02]). AF recurrence and cardiovascular death results were not significantly different between dronedarone and sotalol in all-studies and sensitivity analyses. ConclusionThe NMA findings indicate that, across all clinical trials and observational studies included, dronedarone compared with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, but with no difference in AF recurrence.
|
|
