Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent condition particularly amongst the elderly, which contributes to both morbidity and mortality. The burden of disease has lead to significant increases in health care utilization and cost in recent years. Treatment of Atrial fibrillation consists of either a rate or rhythm control strategy. Rhythm control is achieved using medical management and/or catheter ablation. In spite of major strides in catheter ablation, this procedure remains a second line treatment of AF. Anti-arrhythmic medications represent the main treatment modality for the maintenance of sinus rhythm. Amiodarone has been used for decades because of its efficacy and lack of pro-arrhythmia despite numerous extra-cardiac side effects. Novel agents such as Dronedarone were designed to emulate Amiodarone without the extra-cardiac side effects. Unfortunately recent trials have raised concerns for the safety of this medication in certain patients. Other agents such as Vernakalant and Ranolazine are in development that promise to be more atrial selective in their action, thereby potentially avoiding pro-arrhythmia and heart failure side effects. It remains to be seen however if one or more of these agents achieves the required high efficacy and safety threshold. This review summarizes the main anti-arrhythmic clinical trials, early phase trials involving novel agents and examines the conflicting data relating to Dronedarone.

Systemic thromboembolism and bleeding remain the two most common and serious complications of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. A variety of periprocedure anticoagulation strategies have been proposed to mitigate these risks. Although operators are now routinely administering dabigatran for anticoagulation in this setting, its relative safety and effectiveness compared to warfarin are unknown.A total of 202 patients received dabigatran as part of their periprocedural anticoagulation regimen at the time of initial or redo catheter ablation for symptomatic atrial fibrillation. A comparison group of 202 patients treated with warfarin was randomly selected from patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation during the same time period. AF types were paroxysmal in 223 patients, persistent in 158 patients, and longstanding persistent in 13 patients. Mean age was 60.0 ± 10.5 years, 55 % had a history of hypertension, and mean CHADS-VASc score was 1.7 ± 1.3. "Continuous" warfarin or dabigatran was administered in 80 and 32 % of patients, respectively. Time to first dose of dabigatran post-procedure was 12.2 ± 10.3 h. Two dabigatran and no warfarin-treated patients had systemic thromboembolism (p = NS); five dabigatran and three warfarin-treated patients had bleeding complications (p = NS, combined endpoint p = 0.116). One dabigatran patient had severe pericardial bleeding (3 L blood loss).In a retrospective pilot trial comparing the risks of systemic thromboembolism or bleeding complications in patients treated with warfarin or dabigatran anticoagulation, the outcomes were similar. A prospective trial is warranted.