1.
Role of ranolazine in the prevention and treatment of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Gong, M, Zhang, Z, Fragakis, N, Korantzopoulos, P, Letsas, KP, Li, G, Yan, GX, Liu, T
Heart rhythm. 2017;(1):3-11
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ranolazine (RN) for prevention and cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of RCTs to examine the potential role of RN in the prevention and cardioversion of AF. METHODS PubMed and EMBASE were searched until June 2016. Of 484 initially identified studies, 8 RCTs were finally analyzed. RESULTS The analysis of RCTs showed that RN significantly reduced the incidence of AF compared to the control group in various clinical settings, such as after cardiac surgery, in acute coronary syndromes, and post-electrical cardioversion of AF (relative risk [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.87, Z = 3.06, P = .002). Furthermore, a higher conversion rate of AF from the combined use of RN and amiodarone compared to amiodarone alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.40, Z = 3.07, P = .002) was clear, with conversion time significantly shorter in RN plus amiodarone compared to the amiodarone group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -10.38 hours, 95% CI -18.18 to -2.57, Z = 2.61, P = .009). CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis suggests that RN may be effective in AF prevention, whereas it potentiates and accelerates the conversion effect of amiodarone of recent-onset AF. Larger RCTs with long-term follow-up in diverse clinical settings are needed to further clarify the impact of RN on AF therapy.
2.
Impact of treatment crossovers on clinical outcomes in the rate and rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation: Insights from the AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management) trial.
Maan, A, Zhang, Z, Qin, Z, Wang, Y, Dudley, S, Dabhadakar, K, Refaat, M, Mansour, M, Ruskin, JN, Heist, EK
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 2017;(7):770-778
Abstract
We investigated the rates and reasons for crossover to alternative treatment strategies and its impact on mortality in patients who were enrolled in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.5 years, 842 patients underwent crossover to the alternative treatment arms in AFFIRM. The rate of crossover from rhythm to rate control (594/2,033, 29.2%) was more frequent than the rate of crossover from rate to rhythm control (248/2,027, 12.2%, P < 0.0001). The leading reasons for crossover from rhythm to rate control were failure to achieve or maintain sinus rhythm (272/594, 45.8%) and intolerable adverse effects (122/594, 20.5%). In comparison, the major reasons for crossover from rate to rhythm control were failure to control atrial fibrillation symptoms (159/248, 64.1%) and intolerable adverse effects (9/248, 3.6%). This difference in crossover pattern was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly decreased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78, P < 0.0001) and cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.88, P = 0.008) in the subgroup of patients who crossed over from rhythm to rate control as compared to those who continued in rhythm control. There was a nonsignificant trend toward decreased all-cause (adjusted HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.53-1.10, P = 0.14) and cardiac mortality (adjusted HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.42-1.18, P = 0.18) in patients who crossed over from rate to rhythm control as compared to those who continued rate control.