Key result
Vernakalant shows no benefit over amiodarone for facilitating electrical cardioversion in resistant AF.
Why the study?
Does intravenous vernakalant improve successful electrical cardioversion in patients with cardioversion-resistant atrial fibrillation compared to intravenous amiodarone?
Observational (n=63)
No
Does intravenous vernakalant improve successful electrical cardioversion in patients with cardioversion-resistant atrial fibrillation compared to intravenous amiodarone?
Effect estimate: OR 0.057 (95% CI 0.006-0.540)
Absolute Event Rate: 66.7% vs 46.7%
p-value: p=0.109
Vernakalant may be a useful agent for facilitating electrical cardioversion in cardioversion-resistant atrial fibrillation, showing higher success rates than amiodarone in patients with previous AF ablation.
May aid resistant AF cardioversion; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice without RCTs.
AIMS: Electrical cardioversion is one cornerstone for the rhythm control strategy of atrial fibrillation (AF), which is, however, hampered by immediate AF recurrence (IRAF) or failed electrical cardioversion (FECV). We aimed to investigate the potential role of vernakalant for facilitated electrical cardioversion in cardioversion-resistant AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The subjects of this study were 63 patients referred to the Heart Centre Leipzig between November 2011 and May 2014 for transthoracic electrical cardioversion of AF. All patients experienced after antiarrhythmic-naïve electrical cardioversion either IRAF (n = 44; 70%) or FECV (n = 19; 30%). After drug infusion, electrical cardioversion was successful in 66.7% of vernakalant-treated as opposed to 46.7% of amiodarone-treated patients (P = 0.109). Multivariate analysis revealed treatment with vernakalant (OR 0.057, 95% CI 0.006-0.540, P = 0.013), treatment with ACEI or ARB (OR 0.101, 95% CI 0.015-0.691 P = 0.019), and IRAF after initial CV (OR 0.047, 95% CI 0.004-0.498, P = 0.011) as predictors for successful, drug-facilitated electrical cardioversion. Subgroup analysis of 18 patients with previous AF ablation revealed a significantly higher success rate of electrical cardioversion after infusion of vernakalant than after infusion of amiodarone (66.7 vs. 11.1%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Vernakalant may therefore be considered as a useful agent for facilitated electrical cardioversion in cardioversion-resistant AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Müssigbrodt et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Cardioversion-resistant atrial fibrillation (n=63). Vernakalant vs. Amiodarone was evaluated on Successful drug-facilitated electrical cardioversion (OR 0.057, 95% CI 0.006-0.540, p=0.109). Vernakalant-facilitated electrical cardioversion was successful in 66.7% of patients compared to 46.7% with amiodarone for cardioversion-resistant atrial fibrillation (P=0.109).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: