Cargando…

Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. It occurs in 1%–2% of the general population and its prevalence increases with age. Dronedarone, a noniodinated benzofuran similar to amiodarone, was developed as an antiarrhythmic agent for patients with atrial fibrillati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Podda, Gian Marco, Casazza, Giovanni, Casella, Francesco, Dipaola, Franca, Scannella, Emanuela, Tagliabue, Ludovica
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3373212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22701087
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S16674
_version_ 1782235430474743808
author Podda, Gian Marco
Casazza, Giovanni
Casella, Francesco
Dipaola, Franca
Scannella, Emanuela
Tagliabue, Ludovica
author_facet Podda, Gian Marco
Casazza, Giovanni
Casella, Francesco
Dipaola, Franca
Scannella, Emanuela
Tagliabue, Ludovica
author_sort Podda, Gian Marco
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. It occurs in 1%–2% of the general population and its prevalence increases with age. Dronedarone, a noniodinated benzofuran similar to amiodarone, was developed as an antiarrhythmic agent for patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of our systematic review was to critically evaluate randomized controlled trials that compared treatment with dronedarone versus placebo or amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Central) were searched up to November 2011 with no language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials in which dronedarone was compared to placebo or other drugs in patients with AF. Internal and external validity was assessed. RESULTS: We identified seven papers corresponding to eight randomized controlled trials. The DAFNE, EURIDIS/ADONIS, and ATHENA trials demonstrated a reduction of AF recurrence with dronedarone as compared to placebo in patients with nonpermanent AF. The DIONYSOS study showed that dronedarone is less effective for the prevention of recurrent AF but improved tolerability as compared to amiodarone. Considering patients with permanent AF, the ERATO trial showed that dronedarone had rate-control effects while the PALLAS study was stopped early since stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes were significantly more frequent in subjects treated with dronedarone as compared to placebo. The ANDROMEDA trial included patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure and was terminated early because of excess of deaths in the dronedarone group. CONCLUSION: Like most antiarrhythmic drugs, dronedarone reduces the recurrence of AF in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF as compared to placebo. However, relapse rates in the first year of therapy are high. Moreover, dronedarone showed to be less effective than amiodarone. Finally, dronedarone should be avoided in patients with permanent AF and a high risk for cardiovascular events or severe congestive heart failure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3373212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33732122012-06-13 Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone Podda, Gian Marco Casazza, Giovanni Casella, Francesco Dipaola, Franca Scannella, Emanuela Tagliabue, Ludovica Int J Gen Med Review BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. It occurs in 1%–2% of the general population and its prevalence increases with age. Dronedarone, a noniodinated benzofuran similar to amiodarone, was developed as an antiarrhythmic agent for patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of our systematic review was to critically evaluate randomized controlled trials that compared treatment with dronedarone versus placebo or amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Central) were searched up to November 2011 with no language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials in which dronedarone was compared to placebo or other drugs in patients with AF. Internal and external validity was assessed. RESULTS: We identified seven papers corresponding to eight randomized controlled trials. The DAFNE, EURIDIS/ADONIS, and ATHENA trials demonstrated a reduction of AF recurrence with dronedarone as compared to placebo in patients with nonpermanent AF. The DIONYSOS study showed that dronedarone is less effective for the prevention of recurrent AF but improved tolerability as compared to amiodarone. Considering patients with permanent AF, the ERATO trial showed that dronedarone had rate-control effects while the PALLAS study was stopped early since stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes were significantly more frequent in subjects treated with dronedarone as compared to placebo. The ANDROMEDA trial included patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure and was terminated early because of excess of deaths in the dronedarone group. CONCLUSION: Like most antiarrhythmic drugs, dronedarone reduces the recurrence of AF in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF as compared to placebo. However, relapse rates in the first year of therapy are high. Moreover, dronedarone showed to be less effective than amiodarone. Finally, dronedarone should be avoided in patients with permanent AF and a high risk for cardiovascular events or severe congestive heart failure. Dove Medical Press 2012-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3373212/ /pubmed/22701087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S16674 Text en © 2012 Podda et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Podda, Gian Marco
Casazza, Giovanni
Casella, Francesco
Dipaola, Franca
Scannella, Emanuela
Tagliabue, Ludovica
Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
title Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
title_full Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
title_fullStr Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
title_full_unstemmed Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
title_short Addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
title_sort addressing the management of atrial fibrillation – a systematic review of the role of dronedarone
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3373212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22701087
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S16674
work_keys_str_mv AT poddagianmarco addressingthemanagementofatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewoftheroleofdronedarone
AT casazzagiovanni addressingthemanagementofatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewoftheroleofdronedarone
AT casellafrancesco addressingthemanagementofatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewoftheroleofdronedarone
AT dipaolafranca addressingthemanagementofatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewoftheroleofdronedarone
AT scannellaemanuela addressingthemanagementofatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewoftheroleofdronedarone
AT tagliabueludovica addressingthemanagementofatrialfibrillationasystematicreviewoftheroleofdronedarone