Why the study?
Does propafenone compared to procainamide improve conversion to sinus rhythm in patients with acute atrial fibrillation?
Does propafenone compared to procainamide improve conversion to sinus rhythm in patients with acute atrial fibrillation?
Procainamide is more effective and faster than propafenone for the acute conversion of short-duration atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Favors procainamide over propafenone for acute AF cardioversion; strengthens RCT evidence for class Ia agents in rhythm control.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Antiarrhythmic drugs are widely used for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and restoration of sinus rhythm. This prospective, randomized, and controlled study compared the efficiency and safety of propafenone versus procainamide for the treatment of acute AF. METHODS: In all, 117 patients (55 women, 62 men, mean age 64.2 +/- 13 years, median 63 years) who presented with AF were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were signs or symptoms of heart failure on physical examination, recent myocardial infarction or cardiac surgery, cardiogenic shock, or hypotension. Forty-one patients spontaneously recovered sinus rhythm; the remaining 76 patients were randomized to receive propafenone or procainamide. Propafenone was given at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight intravenously (i.v.) over 30 min. Patients randomized to receive procainamide received a bolus of 100 mg i.v. administered every 5 min up to a maximum dose of 1 g. The clinical characteristics of the two groups were comparable. RESULTS: The number of patients who recovered sinus rhythm after the treatment was larger in the procainamide-treated group (Group 1) (69.5%) than in the propafenone-treated group (Group 2) (48.7%); p < 0.05. The time required for cardioversion was significantly lower in Group 1 (mean 4.1 +/- 1.3 h), than in Group 2 patients (mean 7.3 +/- 2.6 h) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In the present study, procainamide was more effective than propafenone for the treatment of AF of short duration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattioli et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: