PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 11, 2001Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology45 citations

Comparison Of Digoxin Versus Low‐Dose Amiodarone For Ventricular Rate Control In Patients With Chronic Atrial Fibrillation

View Full Paper
HTHung‐Fat TseYLYui‐Ming LamCLChu‐Pak Lau

Structured PICO

Does low-dose amiodarone improve ventricular rate control compared to digoxin in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
16 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation, mean age 63 +/- 9 years, 13 male and 3 female.
I
Intervention
Low-dose amiodarone for 24 weeks
C
Comparator
Digoxin for 24 weeks
O
Outcome
Ventricular rate (VR) during ambulatory activity and peak exercise at 24 weekssurrogate

Digoxin and low-dose amiodarone demonstrated similar but limited efficacy for ventricular rate control during exercise and did not significantly improve rhythm irregularity, exercise capacity, or quality of life in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation.

Abstract

Rapid ventricular rate (VR) and rhythm irregularity during atrial fibrillation (AF) impair cardiac performance. Although digoxin has been widely used in patients with AF, its efficacy for the control of VR and rhythm irregularity is unsatisfactory. Whether low-dose amiodarone is more effective remains unclear. 2. We randomized 16 patients (13 male, three female; mean (+/-SD) age 63 +/- 9 years) with chronic AF to receive either digoxin or amiodarone for 24 weeks. At baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks follow up, Holter monitor recording and cardiopulmonary exercise test were performed to assess VR and rhythm irregularity control and exercise capacity. 3. Seven and nine patients received digoxin and amiodarone, respectively. After 12 and 24 weeks treatment, both digoxin and amiodarone significantly decreased the mean ambulatory VR and the VR during peak exercise compared with baseline (all P 0.05). 5. Quality of life, determined by SF-36 questionnaire, and AF symptomatology, as measured by the AF Symptom Checklist, were also not significantly changed after treatment with digoxin or amiodarone (all P > 0.05). 6. In conclusion, digoxin and low-dose amiodarone had similar efficacy in the control of VR during ambulatory activity and exercise. However, both were less efficacious during exercise and did not significantly affect rhythm irregularity, exercise capacity, quality of life and AF symptomatology in patients with chronic AF.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tse et al. (2001) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7a03ef0b10e55359894168https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1681.2001.03454.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Amiodarone versus digoxin for rate control in critically ill patients with rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter2018 · 5 citations
  2. 2Intravenous Amiodarone versus Digoxin in Atrial Fibrillation Rate Control; a Clinical Trial.2017 · 5 citations
  3. 3Acute treatment of recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter with a tailored dosing regimen of intravenous amiodarone1995 · 176 citations
  4. 4Intravenous diltiazem is superior to intravenous amiodarone or digoxin for achieving ventricular rate control in patients with acute uncomplicated atrial fibrillation*2009 · 95 citations
  5. 5Ventricular rate control in chronic atrial fibrillation during daily activity and programmed exercise: a crossover open-label study of five drug regimens1999 · 367 citations