Why the study?
Recent meta-analyses suggest flecainide is efficacious and safe for AF cardioversion even with structural heart disease, prompting evaluation of its efficacy and safety against amiodarone in CAD patients.
Does flecainide improve successful cardioversion and maintain safety compared to amiodarone in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease in the emergency department?
Does flecainide improve successful cardioversion and maintain safety compared to amiodarone in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease in the emergency department?
This paper outlines the design of a trial to evaluate if flecainide is superior to amiodarone for cardioversion and non-inferior for safety in ED patients with AF and stable CAD.
May prioritize flecainide for pharmacologic cardioversion in stable patients; confirms class Ic safety and efficacy advantages.
Pharmacologic cardioversion is a well-established alternative to electric cardioversion for hemodynamically stable patients, as it skips the risks associated with anesthesia. A recent network meta-analysis identifies the most effective antiarrhythmics for pharmacologic cardioversion with flecainide exhibiting a more efficacious and safer profile towards faster cardioversion. Moreover, the meta-analysis of class Ic antiarrhythmics revealed an absence of adverse events when used for pharmacologic cardioversion of AF in the ED, including patients with structural heart disease. The primary goals of this clinical trial are to prove the superiority of flecainide over amiodarone in the successful cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the Emergency Department and to prove that the safety of flecainide is non-inferior to amiodarone in patients with coronary artery disease without residual ischemia, and an ejection fraction over 35%. The secondary goals of this study are to prove the superiority of flecainide over amiodarone in the reduction in hospitalizations from the Emergency Department due to atrial fibrillation in the time taken to achieve cardioversion, and in the reduction in the need to conduct electrical cardioversion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsioufis et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: