Key result
Among 465 patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation taking antiarrhythmic drugs at 3 months, 33.3% to 83.3% received them despite the presence of contraindications or warnings.
Observational (n=723)
Yes
A large proportion of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation receive antiarrhythmic drugs despite the presence of contraindications or warnings, highlighting the need for safer alternatives.
May signal prescribing safety gaps in new-onset AF; leaves open whether alerts or safer agents improve adherence.
BACKGROUND: Of the antiarrhythmic agents currently marketed in Canada, 5 are commonly used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). The impact of contraindications, warnings and precautions for the use of these drugs in patients with AF is not known. We evaluated the proportion of patients with AF for whom contraindications, warnings and/or precautions might limit the use of these commonly prescribed drugs and the proportion of patients actually receiving antiarrhythmic drugs despite the presence of contraindications and/or warnings. METHODS: A total of 723 patients with electrocardiographically confirmed, new-onset paroxysmal AF who were enrolled in the Canadian Registry of Atrial Fibrillation were used in this analysis. The 1996 Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties was used to obtain contraindications, warnings and precautions for use of 5 antiarrhythmic drugs: flecainide, quinidine, sotalol, amiodarone and propafenone. Proportions of patients with contraindications, warnings and/or precautions for use of any of these drugs owing to comorbid conditions or concomitant drug therapy were calculated, regardless of whether the drugs had been prescribed. We then calculated the proportion of patients taking each antiarrhythmic drug at 3 months despite contraindications and/or warnings. RESULTS: At baseline, when conditions for contraindications and warnings were combined, 414 (57%), 235 (33%), 327 (45%), 285 (39%) and 272 (38%) patients had restrictions for the use of flecainide, quinidine, sotalol, amiodarone and propafenone respectively. Among 465 patients actually taking these medications at 3-month follow-up, 33.3% (2/6), 83.3% (40/48), 36.4% (92/253), 64.1% (25/39) and 34.5% (41/119) respectively had contraindications and/or warnings against their use. The burden of comorbid disease among patients with AF was noteworthy: 404 (56%) had structural heart disease, which included 227 (31%) with ischemic heart disease, 158 (22%) with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and 106 (15%) with heart failure. INTERPRETATION: The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of existing antiarrhythmic drugs. Over one-third of patients with new-onset AF received antiarrhythmic drugs despite the presence of contraindications or warnings. Although such restrictions may not preclude the use of these drugs, the results demonstrate the need for new antiarrhythmic drugs with fewer limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karin H. Humphries (2004) conducted an observational in new-onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=723). Antiarrhythmic drugs was evaluated on Proportion of patients taking antiarrhythmic drugs at 3 months despite contraindications and/or warnings. Among 465 patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation taking antiarrhythmic drugs at 3 months, 33.3% to 83.3% received them despite the presence of contraindications or warnings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: