Dronedarone.

Amiodarone is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug for maintaining sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. Extra-cardiac side effects have been a limiting factor, especially during chronic use, and may offset its benefits. Dronedarone is a noniodinated benzofuran derivative of amiodarone that has been developed for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Similar to amiodarone, dronedarone is a potent blocker of multiple ion currents, including the rapidly activating delayed-rectifier potassium current, the slowly activating delayed-rectifier potassium current, the inward rectifier potassium current, the acetylcholine activated potassium current, peak sodium current, and L-type calcium current, and exhibits antiadrenergic effects. It has been studied for maintenance of sinus rhythm and control of ventricular response during episodes of atrial fibrillation. Dronedarone reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation, but may be unsafe in those with severe heart failure. This article will review evidence of safety and effectiveness of dronedarone in patients with atrial fibrillation

Role of antiarrhythmic drugs: frequent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, risk of proarrhythmia, and new drug therapy.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the standard of care in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy who are at high risk for arrhythmic events and sudden cardiac death. Although an ICD saves life, ICD shocks are emotionally and physically debilitating. Most patients receive adjuvant antiarrhythmic drug therapy to circumvent episodes of recurrent ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias. Antiarrhythmic drugs including β-blockers, sotalol, amiodarone, and azimilide are effective at reducing the shock burden. This article describes data supporting the need for and potential risks and benefits of adjuvant antiarrhythmic drug therapy and examines the benefits and pitfalls of the same in ICD-implanted patients

Discordance in investigator-reported and adjudicated sudden death in TIOSPIR

Accurate and consistent determination of cause of death is challenging in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. TIOSPIR (N=17 135) compared the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat 5/2.5 µg with HandiHaler 18 µg in COPD patients. All-cause mortality was a primary end-point. A mortality adjudication committee (MAC) assessed all deaths. We aimed to investigate causes of discordance in investigator-reported and MAC-adjudicated causes of death and their impact on results, especially cardiac and sudden death. The MAC provided independent, blinded assessment of investigator-reported deaths (n=1302) and assigned underlying cause of death. Discordance between causes of death was assessed descriptively (shift tables). There was agreement between investigator-reported and MAC-adjudicated deaths in 69.4% of cases at the system organ class level. Differences were mainly observed for cardiac deaths (16.4% investigator, 5.1% MAC) and deaths assigned to general disorders including sudden death (17.4% investigator, 24.6% MAC). Reasons for discrepancies included investigator attribution to the immediate (e.g. myocardial infarction (MI)) over the underlying cause of death (e.g. COPD) and insufficient information for a definitive cause. Cause-specific mortality varies in COPD, depending on the method of assignment. Sudden death, witnessed and unwitnessed, is common in COPD and often attributed to MI without supporting evidence

Conversion Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Ibutilide Compared With Intravenous Procainamide in Patients With Atrial Flutter or Fibrillation 11This study was sponsored by Pharmacia & Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Michigan.22See Appendix Afor a complete list of investigators and study sites.

AbstractObjectives. This multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of ibutilide versus procainamide for conversion of recent-onset atrial flutter or fibrillation.Background. Ibutilide fumarate is an intravenous (IV) class III antiarrhythmic agent that has been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo in the pharmacologic conversion of atrial flutter and fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Procainamide is commonly used for conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm.Methods. One hundred twenty-seven patients (age range 22 to 92 years) with atrial flutter or fibrillation of 3 h to 90 days’ (mean 21 days) duration were randomized to receive either two 10-min IV infusions of 1 mg of ibutilide fumarate, separated by a 10-min infusion of 5% dextrose in sterile water, or three successive 10-min IV infusions of 400 mg of procainamide hydrochloride.Results. Of the 127 patients, 120 were evaluated for efficacy: 35 (58.3%) of 60 in the ibutilide group compared with 11 (18.3%) of 60 in the procainamide group had successful termination within 1.5 h of treatment (p < 0.0001). Seven patients were found to have violated the protocol and were not included in the final evaluation. In the patients with atrial flutter, ibutilide had a significantly higher success rate than procainamide (76% [13 of 17] vs. 14% [3 of 22], p = 0.001). Similarly, in the atrial fibrillation group, ibutilide had a significantly higher success rate than procainamide (51% [22 of 43] vs. 21% [8 of 38], p = 0.005). One patient who received ibutilide, which was found to be a protocol violation, had sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia requiring direct current cardioversion. Seven patients who received procainamide became hypotensive.Conclusions. This study establishes the superior efficacy of ibutilide over procainamide when administered to patients to convert either atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter to sinus rhythm. Hypotension was the major adverse effect seen with procainamide. A low incidence of serious proarrhythmia was seen with the administration of ibutilide occurring at the end of infusion

The burden of proof: the current state of atrial fibrillation prevention and treatment trials

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an age-related arrhythmia of enormous socioeconomic significance. In recent years, our understanding of the basic mechanisms that initiate and perpetuate AF has evolved rapidly, catheter ablation of AF has progressed from concept to reality, and recent studies suggest lifestyle modification may help prevent AF recurrence. Emerging developments in genetics, imaging, and informatics also present new opportunities for personalized care. However, considerable challenges remain. These include a paucity of studies examining AF prevention, modest efficacy of existing antiarrhythmic therapies, diverse ablation technologies and practice, and limited evidence to guide management of high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities. Studies examining the long-term effects of AF catheter ablation on morbidity and mortality outcomes are not yet completed. In many ways, further progress in the field is heavily contingent on the feasibility, capacity, and efficiency of clinical trials to incorporate the rapidly evolving knowledge base and to provide substantive evidence for novel AF therapeutic strategies. This review outlines the current state of AF prevention and treatment trials, including the foreseeable challenges, as discussed by a unique forum of clinical trialists, scientists, and regulatory representatives in a session endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society at the 12th Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, DC, December 3–5, 2015

A Review of the Cardiovascular Safety of Prucalopride in Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation

Prokinetic agents, specifically 5-hydroxytryptamine type 4 (5-HT 4 ) receptor agonists, have been shown to provide relief in chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). The first-generation 5-HT 4 agonists were initially withdrawn from use owing to associations with serious cardiovascular (CV) events. This review summarizes CV safety data for prucalopride, a high-affinity 5-HT 4 agonist approved in the United States in 2018 for adults with CIC. No significant effects of prucalopride on CV safety were observed in animal models or early-phase clinical studies, including a thorough QT study at therapeutic (2 mg) or supratherapeutic (10 mg) doses. Among 1,750 patients with CIC who received prucalopride (2-4 mg) in 5 phase 3 studies, no trends in CV adverse events, electrocardiogram parameters, or blood pressure were documented; ≤1.0%-2.0% of patients had prolonged QT interval corrected for heart rate (HR) using Fridericia formula after placebo or prucalopride treatment, and low HR occurred in ≤6.1% and ≤3.3% of these patients, respectively. In two 24-month observational studies among 2,468 patients, changes in electrocardiogram parameters over time were minor, except at occasional time points when significant changes from baseline were reported for HR or QT interval. In a real-world European CV safety study among 35,087 patients (prucalopride, 5,715; polyethylene glycol 3350 [PEG3350], 29,372), results were consistent for no evidence of increased risk of major adverse CV events among patients treated with prucalopride vs PEG3350 (incidence rate ratio = 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.36-1.14). Studies to date have not raised concerns regarding the impact of prucalopride treatment on CV parameters