Search

The current treatment paradigm for atrial fibrillation (AF) prioritizes rate control over rhythm control; however, rhythm control has shown benefits over other AF strategies. This study compares the outcomes of rivaroxaban with and without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), using propensity score matching to correct for statistical effects of baseline discrepancies. This multi-center retrospective study included 1,477 patients with non-permanent AF who took rivaroxaban for at least one month between 2011 and 2016 and had not received catheter ablation. Concomitant AAD use was compared against clinical outcome endpoints for effectiveness, safety, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Associations with concomitant AAD use were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Patients were divided into two matched groups: rivaroxaban alone (n = 739) and with concomitant AADs (n = 738). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.308), effectiveness (p = 0.583), and MACE (p = 0.754) were similar between the two groups, and multivariate analysis showed no significant differences. The new thromboembolism and all-cause death rates were higher in rivaroxaban alone (2.7% vs 0.8%, p = 0.005; and 10% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.032, respectively). The heart failure readmission rate was higher in the concomitant-AAD group (8.4% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.003). The concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well-tolerated, with lower rates of thromboembolism and all-cause death, but is associated with more occurrences of congestive heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rivaroxaban reduces the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, who often also receive antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm. Current guidelines contraindicate concomitant use of rivaroxaban with the popular AAD dronedarone, despite little data demonstrating interactions with AADs. This study investigates the outcomes of concomitant rivaroxaban and AAD drug use in a real-world cohort. Methods: This retrospective study included 1777 non-permanent AF patients taking rivaroxaban for ≥ 1 month between 2011 and 2016 from a multicenter cohort in Taiwan, and compared concomitant AAD use against clinical outcome endpoints for safety, effectiveness, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between concomitant AAD use and outcomes. Results: Patients were divided into rivaroxaban alone (n = 1205) and with concomitant amiodarone (n = 177), dronedarone (n = 231), or propafenone (n = 164) groups. The proportion of patients using rivaroxaban 10 mg was highest in the concomitant dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 53.6%; with amiodarone, 57.6%; with dronedarone, 77.1%; and with propafenone, 46.3% (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.892), effectiveness (p = 0.336), and MACE (p = 0.674) were similar between the four groups; however, there were significantly fewer new systemic thromboembolisms in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 2.5%; with amiodarone, 0.6%; with dronedarone, 0%; and with propafenone, 1.2% (p = 0.029). The all-cause death rate was also lowest in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 9.0%; with amiodarone, 9.6%; with dronedarone, 3.0%; and with propafenone: 6.1% (p = 0.013). After covariate adjustment, there were no differences in the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between patients receiving or not receiving AADs. Conclusion: Concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well tolerated, warranting further investigation into the apparent benefits of a reduced dose of rivaroxaban combined with dronedarone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction to: I Scientific Reports i https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07466-z, published online 08 March 2022 The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 2, which was incorrectly given as 'Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, MacKay Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan'. The correct affiliation is listed below: Department of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei, Taiwan. [Extracted from the article]

CI should, therefore, be considered in resting HF status and warrants CLS for effective HR adaptation, particularly in physically inactive patients. To ensure that HR response was modulated by stress rather than only motion, a closed loop stimulation (CLS) pacing program (DDD-CLS; Biotronik Evia DR-T) was chosen over a conventional rate-responsive, accelerometer-equipped sensor, or newer peak endocardial acceleration pacemaker. Keywords: Closed loop stimulation; Chronotropic incompetence; Heart failure; CLS; Pacemaker EN Closed loop stimulation Chronotropic incompetence Heart failure CLS Pacemaker 229 230 2 04/07/22 20220301 NES 220301 A 67-year-old female patient had coronary artery disease, but her elective total revascularization did not improve the symptoms of heart failure. [Extracted from the article]