Anti-arrhythmic agents demonstrate variable efficacy in converting and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation, though their long-term use is often limited by pro-arrhythmic and non-cardiac toxicities.
Although atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen during daily cardiovascular physician practice, its management remained a challenge for cardiology physician as there was no single anti-arrhythmic agents proved to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and kept its effectiveness in maintaining sinus rhythm over long term. Moreover all the anti-arrhythmic agents that are used in treatment of AF were potentially pro-arrhythmic especially in patients with coronary artery disease and structurally abnormal heart. Some of these drugs also have serious non cardiac side effects that limit its long term use in the management of atrial fibrillation. Several new and investigational anti-arrhythmic agents are emerging but data supporting their effectiveness and safety are still limited. In this systematic review we examine the efficacy and safety of these medications supported by the major published randomized trials, meta-analyses and review articles and conclude with a summary of guidelines recommendations.
Of et al. (Sun,) conducted a review in Atrial Fibrillation. Anti-arrhythmic agents vs. Placebo or other anti-arrhythmic agents was evaluated. Anti-arrhythmic agents demonstrate variable efficacy in converting and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation, though their long-term use is often limited by pro-arrhythmic and non-cardiac toxicities.