Antiarrhythmic Drug Suppression of Atrial Fibrillation

Login or register to view PDF.
US Cardiology 2004;2004:1(1):1-5



Prospective trials have demonstrated that flecainide, propafenone, quinidine, and sotalol are equally effective in preventing recurrences of atrial fibrillation (AF). A new twice-a-day formulation of propafenone has been demonstrated to have efficacy that is higher than the short-acting form of the drug. Dofetilide, although useful for terminating and preventing recurrence of persistent AF, has limited data establishing efficacy for the prevention of paroxysmal AF. Amiodarone has been demonstrated to be more efficacious than propafenone or sotalol. Trials have demonstrated that subjective adverse effects are less frequent with class IC drugs, sotalol, and dofetilide, compared with class IA antiarrhythmics. In patients who have no evidence of structural heart disease, flecainide, propafenone and d,l-sotalol are the initial drugs of choice based on safety and efficacy concerns outlined in published guidelines. In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), sotalol, dofetilide, and amiodarone should be used front-line, given their demonstrated safety in survival trials. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction and congestive heart failure, only dofetilide and amiodarone have demonstrated safety based on large prospective survival trials.

AF is the most common cardiac tachyarrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. AF is a disease of aging with over 10% of patients over 80 years old suffering from the disorder.1 The presence of AF is associated with a five-fold increase in morbidity and a two-fold increase in mortality. The majority of morbidity and mortality associated with this arrhythmia are related to complications associated with cerebrovascular embolic events since AF accounts for 75,000 strokes per year in the US. Although AF can be asymptomatic, the majority of patients have symptomatic complaints including palpitations, dyspnea, chest discomfort, and lassitude. These symptoms are often significant enough to adversely affect quality-of-life scores on standardized questionnaires.

The majority of patients with AF have associated structural heart disease, with hypertensive cardiovascular disease being the most frequent cause. However, 20% to 30% of AF cases are labeled as idiopathic or 'loneÔÇÖ AF with no discernible cause identified even after extensive evaluation. The choice of antiarrhythmic agent is affected by the presence or absence of significant structural heart disease.2 Safety and efficacy are important considerations in choosing an antiarrhythmic drug for the prevention of AF recurrences. Antiarrhythmic adverse effects include drug-induced proarrhythmia, mortality, bradyarrhythmias, negative inotropy, and subjective and end-organ toxicity.


  1. Singh B N, ÔÇ£Atrial fibrillation: Epidemiologic considerations and rationale for conversion and maintenance of sinus rhythmÔÇØ, J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol.Therapeut. 2003; 8: S13-S26.
  2. Fuster V, Ryd├®n L E, Asinger R W, Cannom D S, et al.,ÔÇ£ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines and Policy Conferences. (Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation)ÔÇØ, J.Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2001; 38:1,231-1,265
  3. Murgatroyd F D, Gibson S M, Baiyan X, O'Nunain S, Poloniecki J D,Ward D E, Malik M, and Camm A J,ÔÇ£Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of digoxin in symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Circulation 1999; 99: 2,765-2,770.
  4. Kuhlkamp V, Schirdewan A, Stangl K, Honberg M, Ploch M, and Beck O A, ÔÇ£Use of metoprolol CR/XL to maintain sinus rhythm after conversion from persistent atrial fibrillation. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studyÔÇØ, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2000;36:139-146.
  5. Steeds R P, Birchall A S, Smith M, and Channer K S,ÔÇ£An open-label randomized, crossover study comparing sotalol and atenolol in the treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Heart 1999;82:170-175.
  6. Benditt D G, Williams J H, Jin J, Deering T F, Zucker R, Browne K, Chang-Sing P, Singh B N, d,l-Sotalol Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Study Group, ÔÇ£Maintenance of sinus rhythm with oral d,l-sotalol therapy in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutterÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1999;84:270-277.
  7. Tieleman R G, DeLangen C,Van Gelder I C, de Kam P J, Grandjean J, Bel K J, et al.,ÔÇ£Verapamil reduces tachycardia-induced electrical remodeling of the atriaÔÇØ, Circulation 1997;95: 1,945-1,953.
  8. Sticherling C, Ozaydin M,Tada H, Oral H, Pelosi F, Knight B P, Strickberger S A, and Morady F, ÔÇ£Comparison of verapamil and ibutilide for the suppression of immediate recurrences of atrial fibrillation after transthoracic cardioversionÔÇØ, J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol.Therapeut. 2002;7(3):155-160.
  9. The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigations of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Investigators,ÔÇ£A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;347: 1,825-1,833.
  10. Hohnloser S H, Kuck K H, and Lilienthal J,ÔÇ£Rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillationÔÇöPharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation (PIAF): a randomised trialÔÇØ, Lancet 2000;356: 1,789-1,794.
  11. Van Gelder I C, Hagens V E, Bosker H A, Kingma J H, Kamp O, Kingma T, Said S A, Darmanata J I, Alphons J M, Timmermans A J M,Tijssen J G P, and Crijns H J G M, ÔÇ£A Comparison of Rate Control and Rhythm Control in Patients with Recurrent Persistent Atrial Fibrillation The Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion trialÔÇØ, N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;347: 1,834-1,840.
  12. Naccarelli G V,Wolbrette D L, Khan M, Bhatta L, Hynes J, Samii S, and Luck J, ÔÇ£Old and new antiarrhythmic drugs for converting and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation: Comparative efficacy and results of trialsÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 2003;91: 15D-26D.
  13. Naccarelli G V,Wolbrette D L, Bhatta L, Khan M, Hynes J, Samii S, and Luck J,ÔÇ£A review of clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of newer antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, J. Intervent. Cardiol. Electrophys. 2003;9: 215-222.
  14. Nichol G, McAlister F, Pham B, Laupacis A, Shea B, Green M, and Wells G,ÔÇ£Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic agents at promoting sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Heart 2002; 87: 535-543.
  15. Naccarelli G V, Dorian P, Hohnsloser S H, and Coumel P, for the Flecainide Multicenter Atrial Fibrillation Study Group, ÔÇ£Prospective comparison of flecainide versus quinidine for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1996;77: 53A-59A.
  16. Lee S H, Chen S A,Tai C T, Chiang C E,Wen Z C, Chen Y J,Yu W C, Huang J L, Fong A N, Cheng J J, and Chang M S, ÔÇ£Comparisons of oral propafenone and sotalol as an initial treatment in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1997;79:905-908.
  17. Chiemienti M, Cullen M T, Casadei G, for the flecainide and propafenone Italian study (FAPIS) investigators, ÔÇ£Safety of longterm flecainide and propafenone in the management of patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Report from the flecainide and propafenone Italian study investigatorsÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1996;77:60A-65A.
  18. Aliot E, Denjoy I, and the Flecainide AF French Study Group, ÔÇ£Comparison of the safety of flecainide versus propafenone in hospital out-patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation/flutterÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1996;77:66A-71A.
  19. Bellandi F, Dabizzi RP, and Niccoli L, et al., ÔÇ£Propafenone and sotalol: Long term efficacy and tolerability in the prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. A placebo-controlled double-blind studyÔÇØ, G. Ital. Cardiol. 1996;26:379-390.
  20. Richiardi P E, Gaita F, and Greco C, et al.,ÔÇ£Propafenone versus idrochinidina nella profiliassi farmacologica a lungo termine della fibrallazione atrialeÔÇØ, Cardiologia 1992;37:123-127.
  21. Reimold S C, Cantillon C O, Friedman P L, and Antman E M, ÔÇ£Propafenone versus sotalol for suppression of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1993;71:558-563.
  22. Pritchett E L C, McCarthy E A, and Wilkinson W E, ÔÇ£Propafenone treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal supraventricular arrhythmias.A randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in patients tolerating oral therapyÔÇØ, Ann. Intern. Med. 1991; 114: 539-544.
  23. Pritchett E L C, Page R L, Carlson M, Undesser K, and Fava G, for the Rhtyhmol Atrial Fibrillation Trial (RAFT) Investigators, ÔÇ£Efficacy and safety of sustained-release propafenone (propafenone SR) for patients with atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 2003;92: 941-946.
  24. Meinertz T, Lip G Y H, Lombardi F, Sadowski Z P, Kalsch B, Camez A, Hewkin A, and Eberle S, on behalf of the ERAFT Investigators,ÔÇ£Efficacy and safety of propafenone sustained release in the prophylaxis of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (The European Rythmol/Rythmonorm Atrial Fibrillation Trial (ERAFT) Study)ÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 2002;90: 1,300-1,306.
  25. Pederson O D, Bagger H, Keller N, Marchant B, Kober L, and Torp-Pederson C, for the Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Morality ON Dofetilide Study Group, ÔÇ£Efficacy of dofetilide in the treatment of atrial fibrillation-flutter in patients with reduced left ventricular function:A Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality ON Dofetilide (DIAMOND) substudyÔÇØ, Circulation 2001;104;292-296.
  26. Singh S, Zoble R G,Yellen L, Brodsky M A,Feld G K, Berk M, and Billing C B, ÔÇ£Efficacy and safety of oral dofetilide in converting to and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation or flutter: the symptomatic atrial fibrillation investigative research on dofetilide (SAFIRE-D) studyÔÇØ, Circulation 2000; 102:2,385-2,390.
  27. Greenbaum R, Campbell T J, Channer K S, et al.,ÔÇ£Conversion of atrial fibrillation and maintenance of sinus rhythm by dofetilide. The EMERALD study (abstract)ÔÇØ, Circulation 1998;I-633.
  28. Prystowsky E N, Freeland S, Branyas N A, Rardon D P, Fogel R I, Padanilam B J, and Rippy J S, ÔÇ£Clinical experience with dofetilide in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2003;14: S287-S290.
  29. Kochiadakis G E, Igoumenidis N E, Marketou M E, Solomou M C, Kanoupakis E M,Vardas P E, ÔÇ£Low-dose amiodarone versus sotalol for suppression of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, Am. J. Cardiol. 1998;81:995-998.
  30. Roy D,Talajic M, Dorian P, et al. for the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation InvestigatorsÔÇØ, ÔÇ£Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillationÔÇØ, N. Eng. J. Med. 2000; 342: 913-920.
  31. Vorperian C R, Havighhurst T C, Miller S, January C T,ÔÇ£Adverse effects of low dose amiodarone: a meta-analysisÔÇØ, J.Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1997;30:791-798.
  32. Maisel W H, Kuntz K M, Reimold S C, Lee T H, Antman E M, Friedman P L, and Stevenson W G, ÔÇ£Risk of initiating antiarrhythmic drug therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients admitted to a University HospitalÔÇØ, Ann. Intern. Med. 1997;127:281-284.
  33. Naccarelli G V,Wolbrette D L, Dell'Orfano J T, Patel H M, and Luck J C, ÔÇ£A decade of clinical trial developments in postmyocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia patients: From CAST to AVID and beyondÔÇØ, J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 1998; 9: 864-889.