4.0 Article

Pharmacological cardioversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation with intravenous amiodarone in patients receiving long-term amiodarone therapy: Is it reasonable?

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022367311529

关键词

amiodarone; atrial fibrillation; cardioversion; electrophysiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In clinical practice the use of intravenous amiodarone has been proposed for the conversion of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients already under chronic treatment with the same drug. Given that intravenous amiodarone exhibits different electrophysiological properties than when the drug is taken orally over a long period, this approach seems reasonable, but its effectiveness and safety have not been investigated systematically before. Of 45 patients under chronic treatment with amiodarone for the maintenance of sinus rhythm who had atrial fibrillation of recent onset, 23 were given intravenous loading of the same drug for 24 hours and 22 received placebo. Nine patients underwent an electrophysiological study several months after the successful restoration of sinus rhythm, before and after another intravenous loading dose of amiodarone, in order to examine the possible electrophysiological changes. In the amiodarone group 20 patients were successfully converted to sinus rhythm, compared to 13 of the placebo group (p < 0.05). No serious side effects of the intravenous administration were observed. Prolongation of refractoriness was seen in all 9 patients who underwent electrohysiological study after intravenous loading, without any effect on repolarization, atrioventricular conduction or sinus node function. In conclusion an intravenous loading dose of amiodarone exerts an additional electrophysiological effect in patients already under chronic treatment with the same drug. Such a combined therapy could be used with a high efficacy and safety for the conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation in patients who are receiving long-term amiodarone therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据