A comparison of two individual amiodarone regimens to placebo in open heart surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the ability of two oral amiodarone regimens to reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) as compared with the placebo among elderly open heart surgery (OHS) patients receiving beta blockade. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 220 patients undergoing OHS. Patients (average age, 73 years) received 7 g of oral amiodarone more than 10 days starting 5 days before OHS (slow load; n = 56), a 6 g oral amiodarone regimen more than 6 days starting 1 day before OHS (fast load; n = 64), or matching placebo in one of the two previously mentioned regimens (n = 100). RESULTS: Patients receiving the slow load amiodarone regimen had a significant reduction in the risk of AF (48.4%; p = 0.013), AF lasting more than 24 hours (76.5%; p = 0.003), symptomatic AF (90.0%; p = 0.002), and recurrent AF (64.5%; p = 0.025) as compared with the placebo. Patients receiving the fast load amiodarone regimen had significant reductions in the risk of AF lasting more than 24 hours (52.6%; p = 0.038) and symptomatic AF (65.0%; p = 0.024), but the incidence of any AF or any recurrence of AF only showed a trend toward significance (34.0% and 45.5%; p = 0.054 and 0.09, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oral amiodarone in a slow loading regimen provides significant suppression of all AF factors and can be used when a patient has started it at least 5 days before OHS. If a patient has less than 5 days before OHS, the fast loading regimen is an efficacious alternative as it provides significant benefits in preventing AF from lasting more than 24 hours and for preventing symptomatic AF. Both regimens were well tolerated and safe in elderly patients receiving beta blockade according to the hospital's standard protocol.

An economic analysis of amiodarone versus placebo for the prevention of atrial fibrillation after open heart surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if the additional costs of oral amiodarone in patients undergoing open heart surgery would be offset by reductions in the frequency of atrial fibrillation. DESIGN: Piggyback cost analysis of the data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Urban academic hospital. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty elderly patients (> or = 60 yrs old) undergoing open heart surgery. INTERVENTION: Hospital costs of open heart surgery in patients given amiodarone for the prevention of atrial fibrillation and in prespecified subgroups were compared with those for patients given placebo (i.e., standard care with beta-blockers alone). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total hospital costs incurred were $15,565 +/- $9832 and $16,126 +/- $8043 in the amiodarone and placebo groups, respectively (p=0.12). General ward, intensive care unit, operating room, pharmacy, and costs in all other departments were similar between the groups (p>0.05 for all comparisons). Because costs were similar but amiodarone was more effective than placebo, amiodarone was cost-effective compared with placebo. Amiodarone remained cost-effective compared with placebo regardless of the following subgroup characteristics: rapid or slow loading strategy, no history of atrial fibrillation or heart failure, age older than 70 years, and no tolerance to preoperative beta-blockers. Moreover, in the one-way sensitivity analysis, the findings remained robust to changes in effectiveness and cost of amiodarone. CONCLUSION: Routine prophylaxis with amiodarone is cost-effective compared with placebo. Future studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of selective prophylaxis, and primary cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted to validate these findings.