4.7 Article

A randomized, controlled trial of RSD1235, a novel anti-arrhythmic agent, in the treatment of recent onset atrial fibrillation

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 12, Pages 2355-2361

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.021

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of intravenous RSD1235 in terminating recent onset atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND Anti-arrhythmic drugs currently available to terminate AF have limited efficacy and safety. RSD1235 is a novel atrial selective anti-arrhythmic drug. METHODS This was a phase II, multi-centered, randomized, double-blinded, step-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Fifty-six patients from 15 U.S. and Canadian sites with AF of 3 to 72 h duration were randomized to one of two RSD1235 dose groups or to placebo. The two RSD1235 groups were RSD-1 (0.5 mg/kg followed by 1 mg/kg) or RSD-2 (2 mg/kg followed by 3 mg/kg), by intravenous infusion over 10 min; a second dose was given only if AF was present. The primary end point was termination of AF during infusion or within 30-min after the last infusion. Secondary end points included the number of patients in sinus rhythm at 0.5, 1, and 24 h post-last infusion and time to conversion to sinus rhythm. RESULTS The RSD-2 dose showed significant differences over placebo in: 1) termination of AF (61% vs. 5%, p < 0.0005); 2) patients in sinus rhythm at 30 min (56% vs. 5%, p < 0.001); 3) sinus rhythm at 1 h (53% vs. 5%, p = 0.0014); and 4) median time to conversion to SR (14 vs. 162 min, p = 0.016). There were no serious adverse events related to RSD1235. CONCLUSIONS RSD1235, a new atrial-selective anti-arrhythmic agent, appears to be efficacious and safe for converting recent onset AF to sinus rhythm. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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