Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between Dronedarone and Amiodarone Used During the Blind Period in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation
{"title":"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between Dronedarone and Amiodarone Used During the Blind Period in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation","authors":"Yihan Li, Tong Hu, Mingjie Lin, Qinhong Wang, Wenqiang Han, Jingquan Zhong","doi":"10.2147/CPAA.S440704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Dronedarone is an effective drug for maintaining the sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone in patients with AF after catheter ablation (CA) needs more evidence. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of dronedarone and amiodarone in our hospital. Methods Patients who underwent CA from January 2021 to January 2022 and used dronedarone (n=229) or amiodarone (n=202) during the blind period were enrolled. The recurrence of AF in post-and during the blanking period was compared between the groups; the rehospitalization for re-ablation and adverse drug events (ADE) were also calculated. Results During an average follow-up period of 14.28 months, the long-term recurrence rate of AF did not differ significantly between the amiodarone group and dronedarone group (22.71% vs 21.29%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.033, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.661–1.614; p=0.888). The recurrence rate in the blanking period also showed no statistically significant differences between the amiodarone group and dronedarone group (9.90% vs 14.41%, HR, 0.851; 95% CI, 0.463–1.564; p=0.604). The re-hospitalization rates for re-ablation between two groups did not differ between the amiodarone group and dronedarone group (4.65% vs 13.46%; p =0.144). The incidence of ADE was higher in the dronedarone groups than that in the amiodarone group (16.59% vs 5.45%, p <0.001). The main adverse drug events in the dronedarone and amiodarone groups were gastrointestinal (6.99%) and bradycardia (2.48%), respectively. Conclusion Compared to the amiodarone group, the dronedarone group had a similar blank-period and long-term recurrence rate of AF and a higher incidence of ADE.","PeriodicalId":10406,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CPAA.S440704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Dronedarone is an effective drug for maintaining the sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone in patients with AF after catheter ablation (CA) needs more evidence. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of dronedarone and amiodarone in our hospital. Methods Patients who underwent CA from January 2021 to January 2022 and used dronedarone (n=229) or amiodarone (n=202) during the blind period were enrolled. The recurrence of AF in post-and during the blanking period was compared between the groups; the rehospitalization for re-ablation and adverse drug events (ADE) were also calculated. Results During an average follow-up period of 14.28 months, the long-term recurrence rate of AF did not differ significantly between the amiodarone group and dronedarone group (22.71% vs 21.29%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.033, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.661–1.614; p=0.888). The recurrence rate in the blanking period also showed no statistically significant differences between the amiodarone group and dronedarone group (9.90% vs 14.41%, HR, 0.851; 95% CI, 0.463–1.564; p=0.604). The re-hospitalization rates for re-ablation between two groups did not differ between the amiodarone group and dronedarone group (4.65% vs 13.46%; p =0.144). The incidence of ADE was higher in the dronedarone groups than that in the amiodarone group (16.59% vs 5.45%, p <0.001). The main adverse drug events in the dronedarone and amiodarone groups were gastrointestinal (6.99%) and bradycardia (2.48%), respectively. Conclusion Compared to the amiodarone group, the dronedarone group had a similar blank-period and long-term recurrence rate of AF and a higher incidence of ADE.
背景:Dronedarone是维持心房颤动(AF)患者窦性心律的有效药物。无人酮与胺碘酮在房颤患者导管消融(CA)后的疗效和安全性有待更多的证据。我们回顾性比较了在我院使用的无人机酮和胺碘酮的疗效和安全性。方法选取2021年1月至2022年1月期间接受CA治疗,并在盲期使用drone - edarone (n=229)或胺碘酮(n=202)的患者。比较两组间停药后和停药期间房颤的复发情况;计算再消融住院率和药物不良事件(ADE)。结果平均随访14.28个月,胺碘酮组与非甾体酮组AF长期复发率差异无统计学意义(22.71% vs 21.29%),风险比[HR]为1.033,95%可信区间[CI]为0.661-1.614;p = 0.888)。胺碘酮组与drone .酮组在空白期的复发率差异无统计学意义(9.90% vs 14.41%, HR, 0.851;95% ci, 0.463-1.564;p = 0.604)。胺碘酮组和无人机酮组再消融的再住院率无差异(4.65% vs 13.46%;p = 0.144)。无人机酮组ADE发生率高于胺碘酮组(16.59% vs 5.45%, p <0.001)。非甾体酮组和胺碘酮组的主要不良事件分别为胃肠道(6.99%)和心动过缓(2.48%)。结论与胺碘酮组相比,无人机酮组AF的空白期和长期复发率相似,ADE的发生率更高。