Key result
Antazoline was superior to nonantazoline antiarrhythmic drugs for the cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation, achieving an 84.2% conversion rate compared to 66.7% (RR 1.26).
Why the study?
Due to safety concerns regarding available antiarrhythmic drugs, reliable agents for the termination of AF are needed.
Does intravenous antazoline improve rhythm conversion rates compared to other antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=1,365)
Yes
Does intravenous antazoline improve rhythm conversion rates compared to other antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation?
Relative Risk: 1.26 (95% CI 1.11–1.43)
Absolute Event Rate: 84.2% vs 66.7%
Number Needed to Treat: 5.7
p-value: p=<0.001
Intravenous antazoline is an efficacious and safe alternative to standard antiarrhythmic drugs like amiodarone and propafenone for the acute pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation.
Antazoline was associated with higher early conversion rates in recent-onset AF; leaves open its role versus other agents pending randomized trials.
INTRODUCTION: Due to safety concerns about available antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), reliable agents for termination of atrial fibrillation (AF) are requisite. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antazoline, a first‑generation antihistamine, for cardioversion of recent‑onset AF in the setting of an emergency department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective registry covered 1365 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 69.0 [61.0-76.0] years, 53.1% men) with new‑onset AF submitted to urgent pharmacological cardioversion. AAD allocation was performed by the attending physician: antazoline alone was utilized in 600 patients (44%), amiodarone in 287 (21%), propafenone in 150 (11%), and ≥2 AADs in 328 patients (24%). Antazoline in monotherapy or combination was administered to 897 patients (65.7%). Matched antazoline and nonantazoline groups were identified using propensity score matching (PSM, n = 330). The primary end point was return to sinus rhythm within 12 hours after initiation of the treatment. RESULTS: Before PSM, antazoline alone was superior to amiodarone (78.3% vs 66.9%; relative risk [RR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07-1.28; P <0.001) and comparable to propafenone (78.3% vs 72.7%; RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.97-1.20; P = 0.14) in terms of rhythm conversion rate. In the post‑PSM population, the rhythm conversion rate was higher among patients receiving antazoline alone than in the nonantazoline group (84.2% vs 66.7%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.43; P <0.001), and the risk of adverse events was comparable (P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Antazoline appears to be an efficacious agent for termination of AF in real‑world setting. Randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate its safety in specific patient populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wybraniec et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Recent-onset atrial fibrillation (n=1,365). Antazoline vs. Nonantazoline antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone, propafenone, or combination) was evaluated on Return to sinus rhythm within 12 hours after initiation of the treatment (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11-1.43, p=<0.001). Antazoline was superior to nonantazoline antiarrhythmic drugs for the cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation, achieving an 84.2% conversion rate compared to 66.7% (RR 1.26).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: