Key result
In patients with AF and LVEF ≤35% treated with dofetilide, LVEF improved to >35% in 73% of patients, with presence of AF during echocardiogram predicting improvement (OR 4.22; 95% CI 1.71-10.4).
Why the study?
Postapproval data and safety outcomes for dofetilide in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced LVEF are limited.
Does dofetilide improve LVEF and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and LVEF ≤35%?
Cohort (n=168)
Does dofetilide improve LVEF and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and LVEF ≤35%?
In patients with atrial fibrillation and LVEF ≤35%, dofetilide treatment is associated with significant LVEF improvement in most patients, potentially obviating the need for a primary prevention ICD, despite a high rate of early drug discontinuation due to adverse events.
Hypothesis-generating for dofetilide in AF with low LVEF; should not change practice pending prospective trials.
Background: Dofetilide is one of the only anti-arrhythmic agents approved for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, postapproval data and safety outcomes are limited. In this study, we assessed the incidence and predictors of LVEF improvement, safety, and outcomes in patients with AF with LVEF ≤35% without prior implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy, or AF ablation. Methods: An analysis of 168 consecutive patients from 2007 to 2016 was performed. Incidences of adverse events, drug continuation, implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation, LVEF improvement (>35%) and recovery (≥50%), AF recurrence, and AF ablation were determined. Multivariable regression analysis to identify predictors of LVEF improvement/recovery was performed. Results: The mean age was 64±12 years. Dofetilide was discontinued before hospital discharge in 46 (27%) because of QT prolongation (14%), torsades de pointe or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (6% [sustained 3%, nonsustained 3%]), ineffectiveness (5%), or other causes (3%). At 1 year, 43% remained on dofetilide. Freedom from AF was 42% at 1 year, and 40% underwent future AF ablation. LVEF recovered (≥50%) in 45% and improved to >35% in 73%. Predictors of LVEF improvement included presence of AF during echocardiogram (odds ratio, 4.22 [95% CI, 1.71–10.4], P =0.002), coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.16–0.79], P =0.01), left atrial diameter (odds ratio, 0.52 per 1 cm increase [95% CI, 0.30–0.90], P =0.01), and LVEF (odds ratio, per 1% increase, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02–1.16], P =0.006). The C statistic was 0.78. Conclusions: In patients with LVEF ≤35%, who are potential implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidates, treated with dofetilide as an initial anti-arrhythmic strategy for AF, drug discontinuation rates were high, and many underwent future AF ablation. However, most patients had improvement in LVEF, obviating the need for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koene et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation with LVEF ≤35% (n=168). Dofetilide was evaluated on LVEF improvement (>35%). In patients with AF and LVEF ≤35% treated with dofetilide, LVEF improved to >35% in 73% of patients, with presence of AF during echocardiogram predicting improvement (OR 4.22; 95% CI 1.71-10.4).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: