4.6 Article

Candesartan in the prevention of relapsing atrial fibrillation

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 120, Issue 1, Pages 85-91

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.08.086

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; electrical cardioversion; angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Several studies have indicated that treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) may reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertensive patients and patients with left ventricular dysfunction. However, there is limited data on the effect of ACE-inhibitors and ARBs in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion for persistent AF. We hypothesized that treatment with the ARB candesartan, without adjunct antiarrhythmic therapy, would reduce the recurrence rate of AF after successful cardioversion. Methods: In a double blind, placebo-controlled study, 171 patients with persistent AF were randomized to receive candesartan 8 mg once daily (n=86) or placebo (n=85) for 3 -6 weeks before and candesartan 16 mg once daily or placebo for 6 months after electrical cardioversion. Primary endpoint was recurrence of AF. Results: A total of 68 patients in the candesartan group and 69 patients in the placebo group were successfully cardioverted. Forty-eight patients (71%) in the candesartan group and 45 (65%) in the placebo group had a recurrence of AF during 6 months follow-up. Median time to recurrence was 8 and 9 days in the candesartan and placebo groups, respectively. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Treatment with the ARB candesartan for 3 -6 weeks before and 6 months after electrical cardioversion had no effect on the recurrence rate of AF. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available