Rate Control Drugs Research Articles

Comparison of Efficacy of Ivabradine With Traditional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Background: Heart failure patients usually present with disease exacerbation that overburdens the hospitals and also increases the risk of mortality with increased heart rate being the main issue. Consideration is being given to drugs for sole heart rate control in addition to conventional therapy.Objective: To compare the outcomes of ivabradine to traditional treatment in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.Methodology: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Cardiology, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar from November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Patients aged 30-65 years of age and of either gender with heart failure were enrolled in the study. Patients were screened for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and were enrolled into one of the two groups. In group 1, patients were started on traditional treatment, while group 2 patients were given ivabradine as an add-on therapy. Follow-up was made at the end of the second month for evaluation of the outcomes.Results: Each group had 119 patients, with a mean age of 58.05±4.98 years. Group 1, consisted of 61.3% of the patients in NYHA 3, while 38.65% were in NYHA 4. In group 2, NYHA 3 and NYHA 4 patients were 59.6% and 40.3%, respectively. Upon follow-up, there were greater improvements in group 2 as compared to group 1 based on NYHA classifications, with NYHA 2 [47.05% (group 2) vs. 13.44% (group 1)], NYHA 3 [42.85% (group 2) vs. 61.34% (group 1)] and NYHA 4 [10.08% (group 2) vs. 25.21% (group 1)], p < 0.05.Conclusions: Obtaining a more optimal heart rate with ivabradine in patients with congestive heart failure is reflected in an improvement in NYHA classification.

Non-invasive Characterization of Human AV-Nodal Conduction Delay and Refractory Period During Atrial Fibrillation.

During atrial fibrillation (AF), the heart relies heavily on the atrio-ventricular (AV) node to regulate the heart rate. Thus, characterization of AV-nodal properties may provide valuable information for patient monitoring and prediction of rate control drug effects. In this work we present a network model consisting of the AV node, the bundle of His, and the Purkinje fibers, together with an associated workflow, for robust estimation of the model parameters from ECG. The model consists of two pathways, referred to as the slow and the fast pathway, interconnected at one end. Both pathways are composed of interacting nodes, with separate refractory periods and conduction delays determined by the stimulation history of each node. Together with this model, a fitness function based on the Poincaré plot accounting for dynamics in RR interval series and a problem specific genetic algorithm, are also presented. The robustness of the parameter estimates is evaluated using simulated data, based on clinical measurements from five AF patients. Results show that the proposed model and workflow could estimate the slow pathway parameters for the refractory period, and ΔRSP, with an error (mean ± std) of 10.3 ± 22 and −12.6 ± 26 ms, respectively, and the parameters for the conduction delay, and , with an error of 7 ± 35 and 4 ± 36 ms. Corresponding results for the fast pathway were 31.7 ± 65, −0.3 ± 77, 17 ± 29, and 43 ± 109 ms. These results suggest that both conduction delay and refractory period can be robustly estimated from non-invasive data with the proposed methodology. Furthermore, as an application example, the methodology was used to analyze ECG data from one patient at baseline and during treatment with Diltiazem, illustrating its potential to assess the effect of rate control drugs.

Real-world clinical outcomes and anticoagulant therapy in elderly non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure: sub-analysis of the ANAFIE Registry

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are bidirectionally correlated; the more severe the NYHA classification, the higher the incidence rate of atrial fibrillation, and vice versa. HF is included in the items of CHA2DS2-VASc score used to calculate stroke risk in patients with AF, and is itself a risk factor for thromboembolism in such patients. Anticoagulant management in AF patients with HF is thus a key concern that remains to be sufficiently examined, especially in elderly patients aged ≥75 y. Purpose The All Nippon Atrial Fibrillation In the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry enrolled more than 30,000 elderly (≥75 y) patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF), aiming to produce real-world data on their clinical status and prognosis. This sub-analysis of the ANAFIE Registry assessed the 2-year outcomes and status of anticoagulant treatment in elderly NVAF patients with HF. Methods A total of 32,275 patients from the ANAFIE Registry were divided into two groups according to whether they had HF (HF group and reference group). The incidence rates and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of clinical outcomes were determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox proportional-hazards model, respectively. Results A total of 20,159 (62.5%) patients were included in the reference group, and 12,116 (37.5%) in the HF group. Compared with the reference group, the HF group had higher mean age (82.4 vs 80.9 y), female ratio (46.6% vs 40.4%), non-paroxysmal AF (69.8% vs 50.8%), and had lower mean CrCL (43.3 vs 51.6 mL/min). In the HF group, the rate control drugs were frequently used (50.1% vs 35.8%), and the rhythm control drugs were less used (14.2% vs 22.7%) than in the reference group. More patients in the HF group were using anticoagulants (93.9% vs 91.6%; warfarin (WF), 29.6% vs 23.0%; direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), 64.2% vs 68.5%) than those in the reference group. The HF group had a numerically higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolic events (SEE) (3.28% vs 2.84%, HR 0.96, p=0.558) and major bleeding (2.35% vs 1.79%, HR 1.14, p=0.130) than the reference group, but the differences were not statistically significant. The HF group had a significantly higher incidence rate of HF requiring hospitalization (12.99% vs 4.59%, HR 1.94, p&amp;lt;0.001) and all-cause mortality (9.83% vs 5.21%, HR 1.32, p&amp;lt;0.001). In the HF group, patients receiving DOAC had significantly lower incidence rates for major bleeding, HF requiring hospitalization, and all-cause mortality than those receiving WF, while there was no difference for stroke/SEE between both groups. Conclusions Elderly NVAF patients with HF had higher risk of HF requiring hospitalization and mortality than those without. Differences were seen in the incidence rates of major bleeding, HF requiring hospitalization, and all-cause mortality between patients on DOAC and those on WF. This study will explore relevant factors affecting clinical outcomes in elderly NVAF patients with HF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.

Management strategies for atrial fibrillation and flutter in patients with transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (AFL) are common in transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CM). Ventricular rate control drugs in ATTR-CM are poorly tolerated but data addressing tolerability and efficacy of rhythm control strategies is limited. Purpose We report characteristics and outcomes of AF/AFL in a cohort with ATTR-CM. Methods A single center observational study of patients seen at our Amyloidosis Center with wild-type or hereditary ATTR-CM diagnosed between 2005–2019. Treatment was prescribed as per treating cardiologists. Results Eighty-four patients with ATTR-CM (average age 74±10 years, 94% male) had mean follow-up of 27.6±22.8 months. AF/AFL occurred in 61 patients (73%). Clinically significant rapid ventricular response (RVR) was common as well attempted rate control with AV node blockers (Table 1). However, discontinuation was frequent (80%), often for adverse effects of hypotension (33%), bradycardia (15%), or presyncope/syncope (10%). Rhythm control was initiated in 64%, most often with cardioversion (DCCV) or ablation (Table 2). Post-DCCV recurrence was common (91%) and time to recurrence did not differ with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD; 5.8 months (IQR 1.9–12.5) vs without AAD 6.2 months (IQR 1.9–12.5) p=0.83). TEE was performed for 33% of DCCV with thrombus seen in 11% of cases – all patients who were not anticoagulated at the time. TEE was otherwise deferred due to known AF/AFL duration &amp;lt;48 hours (13%) or adequate anticoagulation (54%). Ablation was performed in 23% of patients with AFL (all for typical AFL) with 2 patients (14%) having recurrence after mean of 60.9 months. Pulmonary vein isolation for AF was performed in 12% (86% for persistent AF) with 86% recurrence after median of 6.2 months (IQR 5.6–12.3). Most patients (62%) with rhythm control had subjective improvement (≥1 NYHA class or resolved palpitations). Among AAD, amiodarone was most well tolerated with only 8% of patient discontinuing due to side effects. DCCV and ablation resulted in no direct complications although one patient had a perforation of a previously unknown Zenker diverticulum during TEE pre-DCCV. Conclusions In our ATTR-CM cohort, AF/AFL was common. Rate control was poorly tolerated and often abandoned. While rhythm control of AF/AFL had a favorable safety profile and successful conversion to sinus rhythm led to symptomatic improvement in a majority of cases, durable success with rhythm control was limited, often requiring multiple therapies. DCCV is only modestly successful and not significant improved with AAD. Ablation was successful in cases of cavo-tricuspid isthmus dependent AFL but had limited success in AF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Rate control drugs differ in the prevention of progression of atrial fibrillation.

AimsWe hypothesize that in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), verapamil is associated with lower AF progression compared to beta blockers or no rate control.Methods and resultsIn this pre-specified post hoc analysis of the RACE 4 randomized trial, the effect of rate control medication on AF progression in paroxysmal AF was analysed. Patients using Vaughan-Williams Class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite of first electrical cardioversion (ECV), chemical cardioversion (CCV), or atrial ablation. Event rates are displayed using Kaplan–Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression analyses are used to adjust for baseline differences. Out of 666 patients with paroxysmal AF, 47 used verapamil, 383 used beta blockers, and 236 did not use rate control drugs. The verapamil group was significantly younger than the beta blocker group and contained more men than the no rate control group. Over a mean follow-up of 37 months, the primary outcome occurred in 17% in the verapamil group, 33% in the beta blocker group, and 33% in the no rate control group (P = 0.038). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients using verapamil have a significantly lower chance of receiving ECV, CCV, or atrial ablation compared to patients using beta blockers [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19–0.83] and no rate control (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44–0.93).ConclusionIn patients with newly diagnosed paroxysmal AF, verapamil was associated with less AF progression, as compared to beta blockers and no rate control.

Management Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter in Patients with Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (AFL) frequently complicate transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CM). Management poses challenges as rate control drugs are poorly tolerated and data addressing tolerability and efficacy of rhythm control is limited. We report outcomes of AF/AFL in ATTR-CM in a single center observational study of patients seen at our Amyloidosis Center with wild-type or hereditary ATTR-CM diagnosed between 2005-2019 including 84 patients (average age 74 ± 10 years, 94% male) with 27.6 ± 22.8 months follow-up. AF/AFL occurred in 61 patients (73%). Rapid ventricular response was common as was attempted rate control. However, discontinuation of rate control drugs was frequent (80%), often for adverse effects. Rhythm control was attempted in 64%, usually with cardioversion (DCCV) or ablation. Post-DCCV recurrence was common (91%) and time to recurrence was similar with or without anti-arrhythmic drugs (5.8 months (IQR 1.9-12.5) vs 6.2 months (IQR 1.9-12.5) p = 0.83). Ablation was performed in 23% with AFL (all for typical AFL) with 14% recurrence after mean of 60.9 months. Ablation for AF was performed in 12% with 86% recurrence after median of 6.2 months (IQR 5.6-12.3). Most patients (62%) with rhythm control had subjective improvement (≥1 NYHA class or resolved palpitations). In conclusion, AF/AFL was common in our cohort. Rate control was poorly tolerated and often abandoned. Rhythm control led to symptomatic improvement in a majority of cases, but durable success was limited. DCCV was modestly successful and not significantly improved with anti-arrhythmics. Ablation was successful with typical AFL but had limited success in AF.

Trends in the pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in UK general practice 2008–2018

ObjectiveThe pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation (AF) comprises anticoagulation, for stroke prophylaxis, and rate or rhythm control drugs to alleviate symptoms and prevent heart failure. The aim of this study...

Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Racial and Ethnic Minorities

BackgroundRhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF), including catheter ablation, are substantially underused in racial/ethnic minorities in North America. ObjectivesThis study sought to describe outcomes in the CABANA trial as a function of race/ethnicity. MethodsCABANA randomized 2,204 symptomatic participants with AF to ablation or drug therapy including rate and/or rhythm control drugs. Only participants in North America were included in the present analysis, and participants were subgrouped as racial/ethnic minority or nonminority with the use of National Institutes of Health definitions. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. ResultsOf 1,280 participants enrolled in CABANA in North America, 127 (9.9%) were racial and ethnic minorities. Compared with nonminorities, racial and ethnic minorities were younger with median age 65.6 versus 68.5 years, respectively, and had more symptomatic heart failure (37.0% vs 22.0%), hypertension (92.1% vs 76.8%, respectively), and ejection fraction <40% (20.8% vs 7.1%). Racial/ethnic minorities treated with ablation had a 68% relative reduction in the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.78) and a 72% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (aHR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10-0.79). Primary event rates in racial/ethnic minority and nonminority participants were similar in the ablation arm (4-year Kaplan-Meier event rates 12.3% vs 9.9%); however, racial and ethnic minorities randomized to drug therapy had a much higher event rate than nonminority participants (27.4% vs. 9.4%). ConclusionAmong racial or ethnic minorities enrolled in the North American CABANA cohort, catheter ablation significantly improved major clinical outcomes compared with drug therapy. These benefits, which were not seen in nonminority participants, appear to be due to worse outcomes with drug therapy. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508).

Catheter ablation outscores all other treatment modalities in reducing all-cause mortality and heart failure related morbidity in patients of persistent atrial fibrillation with systolic heart failure

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Catheter ablation in the setting of persistent AF (PeAF) with heart failure (HF) is challenging and often has poor outcome. However, guideline and studies indicate ablation strategy in this group to reduce mortality and HF-related hospitalization. Purpose We have conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of all-cause mortality and improvement of HF-related QOL in patients of PeAF with systolic heart failure comparing rate controlling drugs (RCDs), anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD), catheter ablation (CA) of PeAF and AV nodal ablation with univentricular or biventricular pacing (AVNA). Method Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing mortality and QOL among individual treatment arms (e.g. RCDs, AADs, CA and AVNA) and pair-wise network meta-analysis comparing CA and other treatment arms (RCD, AAD and AVNA) were performed using MetInsight V3. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modeling was used to estimate the relative ranking probability of each treatment group. Results Published data of 14 studies including 3698 patients were included in the NMA with a median follow-up of two years (1A, 2A). The Bayesian modelling with MCMC analysis for pair-wise comparison clearly demonstrated that, AAD [OR (95% CrI): 2.10 (0.43-9.0)], AVNA [OR (95% CrI): 1.32 (0.14-11.7)] and RCDs [OR (95% CrI): 2.76 (0.5-14.1)] have higher all-cause mortality than CA but not within the radar of statistical significance (1B). The Bayesian modelling with MCMC analysis for pair-wise comparison clearly demonstrated that, AADs [MD (95% CrI): 8.02 (-8.32-27.8)], AVNA [MD (95% CrI): 17.0 (-1.9-33.1)] and RCDs [MD (95% CrI): 13.0 (0.1-24.5)] have lesser improvement in QOL than CA but not within the radar of statistical significance (2B). Based on the Bayesian model, CA results in lower all-cause mortality and highest improvement of QOL in the patients of AF with HF (3A, 3B). Conclusion This shapes way for future treatment guidelines in patients with PeAF with HF group and points towards CA to be undertaken before medical therapy fails. This also paves way for further research to confirm the longevity of the beneficial effects and to find the specific subsets of AF with HF patients that would be benefited most from CA. Abstract Figure

Cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): This research study was funded by Biosense Webster, Inc. Dr Leung has received research support from Attune Medical (Chicago, IL) towards a research fellowship at St. George"s University of London. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. Background Randomised data on patient-related outcomes comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) have shown the effectiveness of catheter ablation. Ablation versus medical therapy should also be analysed from a health economics perspective to achieve optimal healthcare resource allocation. Purpose To determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation compared to medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Methods A patient-level Markov health-state transition model was used to conduct a cost utility analysis comparing catheter ablation and medical therapy for the treatment of AF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation treatment versus medical therapy (rhythm and/or rate control drugs) was conducted to enable comparison of AF recurrence between treatment groups utilising the model. Additional model parameters were established based upon a best-evidence review of the literature. The model simulated care delivered from a secondary care perspective. Total patients simulated in this model over a lifetime were 250,000, with patients entering the model at age 64. Only previously treated AF patients were included, including those with concomitant heart failure. A separate scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness specifically in the cohort of patients with AF and heart failure. Main outcomes measures Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and average total expected costs and quality-of-life years (QALYs) incurred over the lifetime of a patient. AF recurrence, complications and cardiovascular adverse events were compared over the total duration inside the model. Results In the base case analysis, catheter ablation resulted in a favourable ICER of £8,614 per additional QALY gained when compared to medical therapy, well below the national Willingness-to-Pay threshold of £20,000. Catheter ablation was associated with an expected increase of 1.01 QALYs, while adding an additional cost £8,742 over a patient’s lifetime. The cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation was improved in the heart failure sub-group analysis, with an ICER of £6,438. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the medical therapy group failed rhythm control at any stage compared to catheter ablation (72% vs 24%) and at a faster rate (median time to treatment failure: 3.8 vs 10 years). Conclusion Catheter ablation appears to be a highly cost-effective treatment for atrial fibrillation, compared to medical therapy, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. With low rates of adverse events and superiority in achieving rhythm control, AF ablation services should be prioritised with appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

Acil Serviste Ejeksiyon Fraksiyonu Bilinmeyen Hızlı Ventriküler Yanıtlı Atriyal Fibrilasyon Hastalarının Akut Hız Kontrolünde İntravenöz Diltiazem veya Metoprolol Uygulaması

Aim: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most widespread persistent cardiac arrhythmia in adults. There is no standard procedure applied in AF patients with rapid ventricular response with unknown ejection fraction (EF) in the emergency department. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and side effects of diltiazem and metoprolol treatments without knowing the EF in AF patients with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department. Material and Methods: Patients with a ventricular response ≥110/min were selected as having AF with rapid ventricular response. The patients first received 25 mg intravenous diltiazem as a rate control drug were compared with those first received 5 mg metoprolol. A total of 50 patients whose EF were not registered before the admission date and was measured after being consulted for cardiology following acute rate control in emergency department were included in this study. Results: For the first drug treatment, diltiazem was given to 56% (n=28) of the patients and metoprolol to 44% (n=22). Moreover, 44% (n=22) of the patients needed a second drug infusion. The proportion of patients received diltiazem in those with preserved EF was significantly higher than those with reduced EF (p=0.032). No statistically significant difference was found between the rates of needing a second administration based on the EF (p=0.157). Conclusion: Diltiazem was found to reduce heart rate earlier than metoprolol. While updating the guidelines for drug selection in acute rate control of AF with rapid ventricular response, rural emergency departments, where EF measurement cannot be achieved, should also be considered.

Pulsatile drug delivery system – a novel approach for time and versatile rate-controlled drug delivery

Pulsatile drug delivery system – a novel approach for time and versatile rate-controlled drug delivery

Major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality after catheter ablation in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: The Fushimi AF Registry.

The impact of catheter ablation (CA) on the long-term clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) are unclear due to limited cohort investigations. The Fushimi AF Registry is a community-based prospective survey of patients with AF in Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, Japan. Of 4465 patients enrolled between March 2011 and July 2019, analyses were performed on 2639 patients (492 patients who underwent CA and 2147 patients who received standard rhythm- and/or rate-control drug therapy at baseline). We compared the baseline characteristics and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: the composite of cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalization, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or systemic embolism), and all-cause mortality during the follow-up using propensity score matching. After entering 20 covariates in the current matching analysis, 342 patients who underwent CA and 342 matched patients who received drug therapy, with a median follow-up of 1865days, were included. The patients who underwent CA were significantly associated with lower incidence of MACE (hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidential interval (CI) 0.36-0.86; P = 0.0077), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.75; P = 0.0016). CA was associated with lower incidences of MACE and all-cause mortality for patients with AF as compared with those who received drug therapy. The most common event of MACE in patients who underwent CA was heart failure hospitalization. URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: UMIN000005834.

Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial.

In patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF), several clinical trials have reported improved outcomes, including freedom from AF recurrence, quality of life, and survival, with catheter ablation. This article describes the treatment-related outcomes of the AF patients with heart failure enrolled in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). The CABANA trial randomized 2204 patients with AF who were ≥65 years old or <65 years old with ≥1 risk factor for stroke at 126 sites to ablation with pulmonary vein isolation or drug therapy including rate or rhythm control drugs. Of these, 778 (35%) had New York Heart Association class >II at baseline and form the subject of this article. The CABANA trial's primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Of the 778 patients with heart failure enrolled in CABANA, 378 were assigned to ablation and 400 to drug therapy. Ejection fraction at baseline was available for 571 patients (73.0%), and 9.3% of these had an ejection fraction <40%, whereas 11.7% had ejection fractions between 40% and 50%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ablation arm had a 36% relative reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41-0.99]) and a 43% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-0.96]) compared with drug therapy alone over a median follow-up of 48.5 months. AF recurrence was decreased with ablation (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42-0.74]). The adjusted mean difference for the AFEQT (Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life) summary score averaged over the entire 60-month follow-up was 5.0 points, favoring the ablation arm (95% CI, 2.5-7.4 points), and the MAFSI (Mayo Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptom Inventory) frequency score difference was -2.0 points, favoring ablation (95% CI, -2.9 to -1.2). In patients with AF enrolled in the CABANA trial who had clinically diagnosed stable heart failure at trial entry, catheter ablation produced clinically important improvements in survival, freedom from AF recurrence, and quality of life relative to drug therapy. These results, obtained in a cohort most of whom had preserved left ventricular function, require independent trial verification. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00911508; Unique identifier: NCT0091150.

‘Digoxin conundrum – Time for validation?’

Despite no incontrovertible data, Digoxin use has been demonised. As a consequence, a lot of patients, stable on Digoxin, have been taken off it and offered alternative drugs. However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel for Digoxin, with the reporting of RATE-AF Trial at the recent European Society of Cardiology Congress. Compared to Bisoprolol, Digoxin use was associated with statistically significantly greater improvements in symptomatology and NT ProBNP levels making Digoxin a first line drug for rate control in permanent AF.

A Comparison of Rate Control Agents for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: Follow-Up Investigation of the AFFIRM Study.

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials comparing rate control agents in atrial fibrillation. Patient-level data from the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial was used to compare outcomes in patients randomized to the rate control arm who were treated with a single rate control agent at baseline. The rate control agents used were beta-blockers, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and digoxin. The independent variable for this analysis was the initial study drug used and the dependent variables were time to first hospitalization and time to death from any cause. We analyzed 1,144 out of 2,027 participants assigned to the rate control group who were on a single rate control agent at the start of the trial. There were 485 (42.5%) participants in the beta-blocker group, 344 (30%) in the calcium channel blocker group, and 315 (27.5%) in the digoxin group. All hospitalization and all-cause mortality occurred in 55.9% and 12.5% of those in the beta-blocker group, 58.4% and 16.7% in the calcium channel blocker group, and 55.2% and 21.1% in the digoxin group, respectively. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences in time to hospitalization or death for any group. In the AFFIRM trial, the initial rate control drug used was not associated with statistically significant differences in time to hospitalization or death after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. There is limited data at present to guide the selection of rate control agents in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Rhythm Control of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in Systolic Heart Failure: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background and ObjectivesPersistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) with heart failure (HF) arguably constitutes the sickest subset of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.MethodsA systematic search was made in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Network meta-analysis (NMA) of PeAF patients with systolic HF comparing all-cause mortality, change in HF-related quality of life (QoL) and hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF) were performed among catheter ablation (CA) of AF, rate-controlling drugs (RCDs), anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs), and atrio-ventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) using Bayesian random effect model.ResultsAblation strategies resulted significantly lower mortality than medical therapies (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.76). CA of AF was associated with lower trend of mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.08 to 7.63) in comparison to AVNA in the Bayesian NMA. Rhythm control strategies resulted significantly higher improvement of QoL than rate control strategies (mean difference [MD], −12.78; 95% CI, −21.26 to −4.31). Bayesian NMA showed that CA of AF was better than AAD (MD, −7.98; 95% CrI, −27.68 to 8.27), however ranked AVNA to be lowest. Ablation strategies provided significantly lower HHF than medical therapies (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.58). Bayesian NMA showed that CA of AF performed not only better than AAD (OR, 0.33; 95% CrI, 0.09 to 1.3) to reduce HHF, but also than AVNA (OR, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 4.76). Of note, RCD ranked lowest with regard to mortality and HHF.ConclusionsCA of AF remains the best strategy even for the sickest group of PeAF patients with systolic HF in regards to all-cause mortality, HF-related QoL and HHF.

Rate control with intravenous diltiazem, verapamil, and metoprolol in acute atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate.

Introduction:Diltiazem is a preferred agent for rate control in atrial fibrillation due to its quick onset, minimal side effects, and low cost. Due to its intermittent national shortage since February 2018, the utilization of intravenous metoprolol and verapamil has increased. This study investigated the effect of intravenous diltiazem, metoprolol, and verapamil on rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate.Methods:This study was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study conducted in patients with acute atrial fibrillation receiving intravenous diltiazem, metoprolol, or verapamil for rapid ventricular rate between 1 January 2012 and 31 August 2018. The primary outcome was the incidence of patients who achieved a rate less than 100 bpm within 1 h of treatment. Secondary outcomes included time to achieve rate control, heart rate at 30 min and 1 h after administration, bradycardia and hypotension incidence, the requirement of other rate control agent(s), inpatient admission, length of stay, and mortality.Results:A total of 73 patients were included in the study. At 1 h after receiving the initial rate control drug, there was no statistically significant difference between diltiazem, metoprolol, and verapamil in achieving rate control. Median time to ventricular rate control was 166 min in the diltiazem group, 297 min in the metoprolol group, and 100.5 min in the verapamil group.Conclusion:There was no difference in achieving rate control when using intravenous diltiazem, metoprolol, or verapamil. Any of the three rate control agents may be used for rate control. However, further studies are needed to determine which agent is superior for rate control.

Effects of Rhythm and Rate-Controlling Drugs in Patients With Permanent His-Bundle Pacing.

Introduction: Antiarrhythmic drug therapy can affect pacemaker parameters in both the atrial and ventricular myocardium. It is not known whether antiarrhythmic drugs impact His bundle pacing/sensing parameters and His to ventricle (H-V) intervals following permanent His bundle pacing (HBP). The aims of the study were to prospectively determine the influence of rhythm and rate-controlling drugs on pacing parameters and H-V conduction after His bundle lead implantation and to assess the impact of rhythm and rate-controlling drugs on the safety of HBP.Materials and Methods: Patients (N = 140) with QRS duration < 120 ms who met permanent pacing indications were prospectively enrolled. Propafenone, lidocaine, and adenosine were injected intravenously after implantation of 3,830 lead during the procedure. Metoprolol succinate, amiodarone, and digoxin were taken orally for 1 month. Pacing parameters before and after drug intervention was measured, including His capture threshold, sensing and impedance, H-V interval, and conduction.Results: There were no statistically significant differences in His bundle pacing thresholds, impedance, and sensing after drug intervention at implantation or during a 2-month follow-up (P > 0.05). The HV interval was not affected except in the large-dose propafenone group where HV interval prolonged (P = 0.001). All patients maintained 1:1 H-V conduction following drug administration.Conclusion: There was no adverse impact on the HBP parameters or H-V conduction after the administration of commonly used dosage of rhythm and rate-controlling drugs. The drugs were safe in patients with permanent His bundle pacing.

Abstract 13898: A Comparison of Rate Control Agents in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Follow-up Investigation of Affirm Study

Introduction: There is limited data from randomized controlled trials comparing rate control agents in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We used patient-level data from the AFFIRM trial to compare outcomes in patients randomized to the rate control arm who were treated with a single rate control agent at baseline, including beta-blockers (BB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), or digoxin. Methods: Patient-level data from the AFFIRM trial was provided through the NHLBI BioLINCC biologic specimens and data repository information coordinating center. Different data sets were used to obtain the data for analysis. The independent variable for this analysis was the initial study drug used, which was classified as BB, CCB, or digoxin. The dependent variables were time to first hospitalization and time to death. Cox proportional hazards survival models were used to control for baseline differences between groups. Results: We analyzed 1144 out of 2027 participants assigned to the rate control group who were on a single rate control agent at the start of the trial. 485 (42.5%) participants were in the BB group, 344 (30%) in the CCB group, and 315 (27.5%) in the digoxin group. The mean age was 69.6 ± 8.0 and the majority of participants (62.9%) were male. Significant differences in baseline characteristics were present between groups, including sex, history of heart disease, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV diastolic dimension, and history of pulmonary disease. Hospitalization and death occurred in 55.9% and 12.5% of those in the BB group, 58.4% and 16.7% in the CCB group, and 55.2% and 21.1% in the digoxin group, respectively. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences in time to hospitalization or death for any group compared to another. Conclusions: In the AFFIRM trial, the initial rate control drug used was not associated with statistically significant differences in time to hospitalization or death after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. There is limited data at present to guide the selection of rate control agents in patients with AF.