Why the study?
Despite its efficacy and rapid onset of action, evidence regarding vernakalant-related adverse events remained controversial.
Does intravenous vernakalant improve cardioversion rates and affect safety in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation?
Does intravenous vernakalant improve cardioversion rates and affect safety in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation?
Intravenous vernakalant is highly effective for rapid cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation compared to placebo, but is associated with a significantly increased risk of bradycardia.
Supports vernakalant for rapid cardioversion in recent-onset AF; confirms superiority to placebo across RCTs with no excess serious adverse events.
Vernakalant is a novel, relatively atrial-selective antiarrhythmic agent. Despite its good efficacy profile and rapid onset of action, there was still controversial evidence regarding vernakalant-related adverse events. We searched PubMed and Embase for studies that compared intravenous vernakalant with placebo or antiarrhythmic agents in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) lasting no more than 7 days. Efficacy and safety outcomes were the treatment-induced cardioversion rate within 90 minutes and adverse events after first exposure to study drug respectively. Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling 1296 patients were analyzed. Quantitative synthesis showed that vernakalant was superior to placebo for cardioversion of recent-onset AF within 90 minutes [49.7% vs. 6.2%, risk ratio (RR) 8.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.35-12.36, P < 0.00001], and it did not achieve statistical significance in cardioversion when vernakalant was compared with ibutilide (62.4% vs. 47.3%, RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.73, P = 0.05). As for safety assessment, no significant differences were found in occurring serious adverse events (9.9% vs. 10.4%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.25, P = 0.57) and hypotension (5.3% vs. 3.3%, RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.86-2.73, P = 0.15) between vernakalant and comparator (either placebo, ibutilide, or amiodarone). There were trends that patients receiving vernakalant experienced more drug discontinuation (2.5% vs. 1.0%, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.96-5.11, P = 0.06) and less any ventricular tachycardia (6.1% vs. 8.1%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-1.00, P = 0.05) than those receiving comparator, but the differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, vernakalant was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia in comparison with comparator (6.3% vs. 1.1%, RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.67-9.75, P = 0.002). Vernakalant is effective in converting recent-onset AF to sinus rhythm rapidly, while significantly more bradycardia events are related to vernakalant in our meta-analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: