Key result
Dronedarone appears safer but less effective than amiodarone for rhythm control in paroxysmal AF.
Why the study?
Therapeutic options for maintenance of sinus rhythm in AF are limited and older antiarrhythmic drugs often cause severe adverse effects leading to discontinuation.
May support dronedarone as safer alternative for paroxysmal AF rhythm control; leaves open comparative efficacy versus amiodarone in larger trials.
The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing as well as the population is aging. Currently the therapeutic options for the maintenance of sinus rhythm are limited and many older antiarrhythmic drugs often have severe adverse effects causing discontinuation. Recent studies indicated that dronedarone, a multiple ion channel inhibitor, may be a safer but less effective alternative to amiodarone for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in paroxysmal AF and for reducing hospitalizations associated with AF. In this article, we aim to summarize available experimental and clinical trial-derived data over dronedarone’s efficacy, safety and indications, to express our opinion on its potential value for AF patients and to discuss its implementation to daily clinical practice for the management of AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuzniatsova et al. (2011) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Dronedarone vs. Amiodarone was evaluated. Dronedarone may be a safer but less effective alternative to amiodarone for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and for reducing associated hospitalizations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: