Atrial fibrillation (AF) conversion to sinus rhythm by electrical cardioversion (ECV) is followed by the challenge of preventing arrhythmia recurrence, especially in high-risk patients. The properties of class IC, class III and also class II antiarrhythmic medications have been established, but not all effects have been studied. The aim of the study was to compare efficacy of class IC and class III antiarrhythmic medications, and additionally medication with a class II mechanism of action, or taken concomitantly with a beta-blocker, for post-cardioversion sinus rhythm maintenance in patients with high-risk AF. A total of 112 patients who underwent successful ECV in Latvian Centre of Cardiology were included. Data was acquired by a face-to-face interview and 1-, 3-, 6-month follow-up interviews. Comparing class IC (used by 34.8%) and class III (used by 65.2%) drugs, there was no statistically significant difference between six-month sinus rhythm maintenance rates (53.8% vs. 63.0%, p = 0.346) and arrhythmia-free survival (p = 0.313). Comparing amiodarone (used by 57.1%) and ethacizine, concurrently with a beta-blocker (used by 25.9%), no statistically significant difference was found between six-month sinus rhythm maintenance (64.1% vs. 58.6%, p = 0.616) and arrhythmia-free survival (p = 0.706). The results showed that specific antiarrhythmic drug choice was not associated with superior effectiveness, highlighting that, if not contraindicated, ethacizine, concomitantly with a beta-blocker, could be used as a similarly effective alternative for amiodarone, which has adverse health effects.
Background and Objectives: The revascularization strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel (MV) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains controversial. Certain gaps in the evidence are related to the optimal timing of non-culprit lesion revascularization and the utility of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the management of MV ACS intervention. The major benefits of iFR utilization in MV ACS patients in one-stage complete revascularization are: (1) the possibility to virtually plan the PCI, both the location and the extension of the necessary stenting to achieve the prespecified final hemodynamic result; (2) the opportunity to validate the final hemodynamic result of the PCI, both in culprit artery and all non-culprit arteries and (3) the value of obliviating the uncomfortable, costly, time consuming and sometimes deleterious effects from Adenosine, as there is no requirement for administration. Thus, iFR use fosters the achievement of physiologically appropriate complete revascularization in MV ACS patients during acute hospitalization. Materials and Methods: This pilot study was aimed to test the feasibility of a randomized trial research protocol as well as to assess patient safety signals of co-registration iFR-guided one-stage complete revascularization compared with that of standard staged angiography-guided PCI in de novo patients with MV ACS. This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label clinical trial consecutively screening patients with ACS for MV disease. The intervention strategy of interest was iFR-guided physiologically complete one-stage revascularization, in which the virtual PCI planning of non-culprit lesions and the intervention itself were performed in one stage directly following treatment of the culprit lesion and other critical stenosis of more than ninety percent. Seventeen patients were recruited and completed the 3-month follow-up. Results: Index PCI duration was significantly longer while the volume of contrast media delivered in index PCI was significantly greater in the iFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group (119.4 ± 40.7 vs. 47 ± 15.5 min, p = 0.004; and 360 ± 97.9 vs. 192.5 ± 52.8 mL, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in PCI-related major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between the groups during acute hospitalization and at 3-months follow-up. One-stage iFR-guided PCI requires fewer PCI attempts until complete revascularization than does angiography-guided staged PCI. Conclusions: Complete revascularization with the routine use of the virtual planning tool in one-stage iFR-guided PCI is a feasible practical strategy in an everyday Cath lab environment following the protocol designed for the study. No statistically significant safety signals were documented in the number of PCI related MACE during the 3-month follow-up.
Rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with arterial hypertension (AH) remains complicated, attributed to pathogenetic link between both diseases. Indirect antiarrhythmic effects of medications not primarily recognized as sinus rhythm maintaining drugs, referred to as upstream therapies, including blood pressure-lowering agents, receive pathogenetically justified increasing attention. Nevertheless, studies demonstrate diverse success. Aim:To evaluate effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and diuretics for sinus rhythm maintenance after electrical cardioversion (ECV) in AF patients with pharmacologically controlled AH. Materials and Methods:Study was conducted among hypertensive AF patients undergoing ECV in the Latvian Centre of Cardiology. Inclusion requirements were intake of ACEI/ARB, MRA or diuretic (at least one) and, additionally, class IC or class III antiarrhythmic drug prescription. Baseline interview and 1-, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-month follow-up was conducted. Data was processed using MS Excel and SPSS Statistics software, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for evaluation of sinus rhythm maintenance prospects (significance level α = 0.05). Results:Among 105 participants, present ACEI/ARB use (75.2%) resulted in 51.9% 12-month sinus rhythm maintenance rate, with outcome for MRA therapy (24.8%) -69.2%, diuretic intake (33.3%) -57.1%. Compared to non-use, ACEI/ARB therapy increased OR for sinus rhythm maintenance by 47.1% (OR 1.471, p=0.396), MRA intakeby 197.8% (OR 2.978, p=0.021), diuretic useby 58.3% (OR 1.583, p=0.270). Conclusion:Increased sinus rhythm maintenance likelihood tendency was observed for studied medications, with statistically significant result for present MRA therapy. Results demonstrate potential of MRAs among hypertensive AF patients in terms of rhythm control, yet not commonly highlighted for this group.
Background: Recurrence prevention after Atrial Fibrillation (AF) termination by Eelectrical Cardioversion (ECV) remains challenging. Increasing attention is paid to pathophysiological effects of non-Antiarrhythmic Drugs (non-AADs), nevertheless, with heterogeneous results. Objective: We evaluated the potential benefits of different non-AADs as adjunctive therapy to Antiarrhythmic Drugs (AADs) for AF recurrence prevention after sinus rhythm restoration by ECV in high-risk patients. Methods: The study was conducted among high-risk AF patients after successful ECV. Prescription of class IC or class III AAD was required. Data were acquired in a face-to-face baseline interview and 1-, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-month follow-up interviews. Results: 113 patients were included. Total AF recurrence rate reached 48.7%. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) intake, compared with non-use, demonstrated AF recurrence rate reduction by 8.5% (46.3 vs. 54.8%), with odds ratio (OR) reduced by 28.9% (OR 0.711, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.310-1.631, p = 0.420). Among mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) users, AF recurrence rate was reduced by 25.1% (29.6 vs. 54.7%) and OR by 65.1% (OR 0.349, 95%CI 0.138-0.884, p = 0.023). Present statin therapy reduced AF recurrence rate by 4.2% (46.8 vs. 51.0%) and OR by 15.5% (OR 0.845, 95%CI 0.402-1.774, p = 0.656). Diuretic use showed reduction of AF recurrence rate by 10.2% (41.7 vs. 51.9%) and OR by 33.9% (OR 0.661, 95%CI 0.297-1.469, p = 0.308). Conclusion: Non-AADs demonstrated practical benefits as adjunctive therapy to AADs for AF recurrence prevention after ECV in high-risk patients, with statistically significant results established for concomitant MRA intake.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.