4.7 Review

Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11041213

Keywords

ARVC; antiarrhythmic; arrhythmia; flecainide; amiodarone; sotalol; ICD

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the English summary, the authors highlight the important role of antiarrhythmic medications in reducing ventricular arrhythmias in ARVC patients. However, they note that current prescribing practices are based on expert opinion and extrapolation from other diseases due to the lack of high-quality studies with consistent methodology. The authors call for further research to improve management and ensure evidence-based prescribing of antiarrhythmic drugs in ARVC.
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a heritable progressive myocardial disorder that predisposes patients to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Antiarrhythmic medications have an important role in reducing the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias and the morbidity associated with recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks. Although several studies have examined the use of antiarrhythmic drugs in ARVC, these have been mostly retrospective in nature and inconsistent in their methodology, patient population and endpoints. Thus, current prescribing practices are largely based on expert opinion and extrapolation from other diseases. Herein, we discuss the major studies of the use of antiarrhythmics in ARVC, present the current approach employed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and identify areas where further research is needed. Most notably, there is a great need for high-quality studies with consistent methodology and randomized controlled trial data into the use of antiarrhythmic drugs in ARVC. This would improve management of the condition and ensure antiarrhythmic prescribing is based on robust evidence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available