ABSTRACT
AIMS: Our objective was to compare the efficacy of pre-treatment with different classes of anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing electrical cardioversion. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different AADs in patients with AF undergoing electrical cardioversion. We grouped AADs into five network nodes: no treatment or rate control, Class Ia, Class Ic, Class III, and amiodarone. Outcomes were (i) acute restoration and (ii) maintenance of sinus rhythm. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception until June 2020. We used Python 3.8.3 and R 3.6.2 for data analysis. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence with the GRADE framework. We included 28 RCTs. Compared with no treatment or rate control, Class III AADs [odds ratio (OR): 2.41; 95% credible interval (CrI): 1.37 to 4.62, high certainty] and amiodarone (OR: 2.58; 95% CrI: 1.54 to 4.37, high certainty) improved restoration of sinus rhythm. Amiodarone improved long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm when compared with no treatment or rate control (OR: 5.37; 95% CrI: 4.00-7.39, high certainty), Class Ic (OR: 1.89; 95% CrI: 1.05-3.45, moderate certainty) and Class III AADs (OR: 2.19; 95% CrI: 1.39-3.26, high certainty). CONCLUSION: Before electrical cardioversion of AF, treatment with Class III AADs or amiodarone improves the acute restoration of sinus rhythm. Amiodarone is most likely to improve the maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion, but Class Ic and Class III AADs are also effective.
Subject(s)
Amiodarone , Atrial Fibrillation , Amiodarone/therapeutic use , Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/therapeutic use , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Electric Countershock/adverse effects , Humans , Network Meta-Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIMS: Clinicians frequently pre-treat patients with amiodarone to increase the efficacy of electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF). Our objective was to determine the precise effects of amiodarone pre- and post-treatment on conversion efficacy and sinus rhythm maintenance. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing pre- and post-treatment for electrical cardioversion with amiodarone vs. no therapy on (i) acute restoration and (ii) maintenance of sinus rhythm after 1 year. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2018 for randomized controlled trials. We evaluated the risk of bias for individual studies with the Cochrane tool and overall quality of evidence with the GRADE framework. We identified eight eligible studies (n = 1012). Five studies were deemed to have unclear or high risk of selection bias. We found the evidence to be of high quality based on GRADE. Treatment with amiodarone (200-800 mg daily for 1-6 weeks pre-cardioversion; 0-200 mg daily post-cardioversion) was associated with higher rates of acute restoration [relative risk (RR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.39, P = 0.004, n = 1012, I2 = 65%] and maintenance of sinus rhythm over 13 months (RR 4.39, 95% CI 2.99-6.45, P < 0.001, n = 695, I2 = 0%). The effects of amiodarone for acute restoration were maintained when considering only studies at low risk of bias (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36, P < 0.001, n = 572, I2 = 0%). Adverse effects were typically non-serious, occurring in 3.4% (6/174) of subjects receiving amiodarone. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence demonstrated that treatment with amiodarone improved the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of AF. Short-term amiodarone was well-tolerated.
