An evaluation of the strategy of maintenance of sinus rhythm by antiarrhythmic drug therapy after ablation and pacing therapy in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation: an observational study with outpatients. Maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation: an AFFIRM substudy of the first antiarrhythmic drug. Cardiac rate normalization in chronic atrial fibrillation: comparison of long-term efficacy of treatment with amiodarone versus AV node ablation and permanent His-bundle pacing. Rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation—Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation (PIAF): a randomised trial Randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control in persistent atrial fibrillation: the Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) study. Natural History and Long-Term Outcomes of Ablated Atrial Fibrillation Atrial fibrillation: the rate versus rhythm management controversy. Long-term risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation as documented by an implantable monitoring device: implications for optimal patient care. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. Antiarrhythmic efficacy of azimilide in patients with atrial fibrillation. Maintenance of sinus rhythm after conversion to sinus rhythm. Success of serial external electrical cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation in maintaining sinus rhythm; a randomized study. Ablation for longstanding permanent atrial fibrillation: results from a randomized study comparing three different strategies. Atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: Role of catheter ablation therapies. Catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial (SARA study) Antiarrhythmics After Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation (5A Study) Evaluation of outpatient initiation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients reverting to sinus rhythm after an episode of atrial fibrillation.
AIMS Permanent atrial fibrillation develops in many patients after ablation and pacing therapy .  We compared a strategy that initially allowed patients to remain in atrial fibrillation with a strategy that initially attempted to restore and maintain sinus rhythm . METHODS AND RESULTS In this multicentre r and omized controlled trial , 68 patients affected by severely symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were assigned , after successful atrioventricular junction ablation and pacing treatment  , to antiarrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone , propafenone , flecainide or sotalol and were compared with 69 patients assigned , after successful AV junction ablation and pacing treatment , to no antiarrhythmic drug therapy . The patients were followed-up for 12 to 24 months ( mean 16+/-4 ) . The drug arm patients had a 57 % reduction in the risk of developing permanent atrial fibrillation ( 21 % vs 37 % , P=0.02 ) . Evaluation after 12 months revealed similar quality of life scores and echocardiographic parameters in the two groups , but the drug arm patients had more episodes of heart failure and hospitalizations ( P=0.05 ) . The outcome was similar between the 40 patients who developed permanent atrial fibrillation and the 97 who did not . CONCLUSION Conventional antiarrhythmic therapy reduces the risk of development of permanent atrial fibrillation after ablation and pacing therapy . The present data do not support the concept that the development of permanent atrial fibrillation is related to an adverse outcome when a perfect control of heart rate is obtained by ablation and pacing BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained arrhythmia with serious clinical consequences in the absence of treatment . However , there are limited data on the treatment of these patients in Argentina . The objective was to describe the therapeutic management of patients with nonacute AF by Argentinean cardiologists and to determine the incidence of clinical events after 12 months follow-up . METHODS The Atrial Fibrillation study in Argentina ( FARAON ) was an observational , descriptive , prospect i ve , national , and multicentric study that included out patients with AF , followed for 12 months . The study included 38 sites in Argentina . Each research er included the first 10 patients who met the inclusion criteria of being over 21 and also being an AF carrier documented by electrocardiogram or Holter within 12 months prior to or at the time of enrollment . RESULTS A total of 373 patients were included , mean age 70 ± 11.5 years , 40 % women ; 65 % had AF rhythm at the time of inclusion , 57 % had permanent AF , and 56 % were asymptomatic . At the time of enrollment , 40 % of physicians opted for rhythm control strategy . β-blockers and amiodarone were the most used drugs . Patients with rhythm control drugs had higher success rate than those with frequency control drug therapy ( 80 % vs 57 % ) . CONCLUSION Cardiologists in Argentina receive patients with AF that are mostly permanent AF . More than half of the patients are asymptomatic . They opt primarily by controlling the pace . When choosing antiarrhythmic drugs , nearly half of them indicated amiodarone OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of  atrial fibrillation ( AF ) .  BACKGROUND The most effective and safest antiarrhythmic drug for the treatment of AF is unknown . METHODS The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management ( AFFIRM ) study compared two treatment strategies -- rate control and rhythm control -- in patients with AF and risk factors for stroke or death . This sub study , performed in patients r and omized to rhythm control , compared different antiarrhythmic drugs by r and omly assigning the first drug treatment to : 1 ) amiodarone , 2 ) sotalol , or 3 ) a class I drug . The primary end point was the proportion of patients alive , in sinus rhythm , with no additional cardioversions and still taking the assigned drug at one year . Comparisons were made between patients eligible for each of three drug pairs . RESULTS At one year , in 222 patients r and omized between amiodarone and class I agents , 62 % were successfully treated with amiodarone , compared with 23 % taking class I agents ( p < 0.001 ) . In 256 patients r and omized between amiodarone and sotalol , 60 % versus 38 % were successfully treated , respectively ( p = 0.002 ) . In 183 patients r and omized between sotalol and class I agents , 34 % versus 23 % were successfully treated , respectively ( p = 0.488 ) , although this portion of the sub study was stopped early when amiodarone was shown to be better than class I agents . Sinus rhythm was achieved in nearly 80 % of patients at one-year follow-up with serial therapy . Adverse effects were common . CONCLUSIONS Amiodarone was more effective at one year than either sotalol or class I agents for the strategy of maintenance of sinus rhythm without cardioversion Chronic atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is a common arrhythmia with significant morbidity and mortality . AF has been the subject of considerable attention and intensive clinical research in recent years . Current opinion on the management of AF favors the restoration and maintenance of normal ventricular rhythm . This has several potential benefits , including the alleviation of arrhythmia-associated symptoms and hemodynamic improvements . Maintenance of frequents normalization of ventricular rhythm ( NVR ) can be achieved with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or with AV node radiofrequency ablation ( RFA ) and permanent ventricular pacing . Recent interest has focused on the use of class III antiarrhythmic agents , such as amiodarone hydrochloride . This investigation compared amiodarone to AV node RFA and permanent pacing of the His-bundle area in maintaining NVR in patients with resistant chronic AF . After 12 months of treatment with amiodarone ( 200 to 400 mg/d ) 30 % of patients remained in NVR , 30 % were in transitional phase of improvement , and 40 % showed negative effect . Only a few patients in this group developed ocular or hepatic side effects . On one year follow-up was achieved in 100 % of cases without any clinical ly significant side effects being seen . In conclusion , analysis of the results of this study suggests that low-dose amiodarone is well tolerated in the management of chronic AF in a selected patient population . The more aggressive interventional radiofrequency ablation technique is significantly more effective and more reliable in the long-term clinical treatment of drug-resistant AF BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly encountered sustained cardiac arrhythmia . Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is believed by many physicians to be superior to rate control only . However , there are no prospect i ve data that compare both therapeutic strategies . METHODS The Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation ( PIAF ) trial was a r and omised trial in 252 patients with atrial fibrillation of between 7 days and 360 days duration , which compared rate ( group A , 125 patients ) with rhythm control ( group B , 127 patients ) . In group A , diltiazem was used as first-line therapy and amiodarone was used in group B. The primary study endpoint was improvement in symptoms related to atrial fibrillation . FINDINGS Over the entire observation period of 1 year , a similar proportion of patients reported improvement in symptoms in both groups ( 76 responders at 12 months in group A vs 70 responders in group B , p=0.317 ) . Amiodarone administration result ed in pharmacological restoration of sinus rhythm in 23 % of patients . Walking distance in a 6 min walk test was better in group B compared with group A , but assessment of quality of life showed no differences between groups . The incidence of hospital admission was higher in group B ( 87 [ 69 % ] out of 127 vs 30 [ 24 % ] out of 125 in group A , p=0.001 ) . Adverse drug effects more frequently led to a change in therapy in group B ( 31 [ 25 % ] patients compared with 17 [ 14 % ] in group A , p=0.036 ) . INTERPRETATION With respect to symptomatic improvement in patients with atrial fibrillation , the therapeutic strategies of rate versus rhythm control yielded similar clinical results overall . However , exercise tolerance is better with rhythm control , although hospital admission is more frequent . These data may serve as a basis to select therapy in individual patients OBJECTIVES This study was design ed to compare two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation(AF ) :  rhythm-control ( restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm ) and rate-control ( pharmacologic or invasive rate-control and anticoagulation ) . BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia . It is unclear whether a strategy of rhythm- or rate-control is better in terms of mortality , morbidity , and quality of life . METHODS The Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation ( STAF ) multicenter pilot trial r and omized 200 patients ( 100 per group ) with persistent AF to rhythm- or rate-control .  The combined primary end point was a combination of death , cardiopulmonary resuscitation , cerebrovascular event , and systemic embolism . RESULTS After 19.6 + /- 8.9 months ( range 0 to 36 months ) there was no difference in the primary end point between rhythm-control ( 9/100 ; 5.54%/year ) and rate-control ( 10/100 ; 6.09%/year ; p = 0.99 ) . The percentage of patients in sinus rhythm in the rhythm-control group after up to four cardioversions during the follow-up period ( rate-control group ) was 23 % ( 0 % ) at 36 months . Eighteen primary end points occurred in atrial fibrillation ; only one occurred in sinus rhythm ( p = 0.049 ) . CONCLUSIONS The STAF pilot study showed no differences between the two treatment strategies in all end points except hospitalizations . These data suggest that there was no benefit in attempting rhythm-control in these patients with a high risk of arrhythmia recurrence . It remains unclear whether the results in the rhythm-control group would have been better if sinus rhythm had been maintained in a higher proportion of patients , as all but one end point occurred during AF Background —Atrial  fibrillation ( AF ) ablation  is increasingly used in clinical practice . We aim ed to study the natural history and long-term outcomes of ablated AF . Methods and Results —We followed 831 patients after pulmonary vein isolation ( PVI ) performed in 2005 . We documented clinical outcomes using our prospect i ve AF registry with most recent up date on this group of patients in October 2009 . In the first year after ablation , 23.8 % had early recurrence . Over long-term follow-up ( 55 months ) , only 8.9 % had late arrhythmia recurrence defined as occurring beyond the first year after ablation . Repeat ablations in patients with late recurrence revealed conduction recovery in at least 1 of the previously isolated PVs in all of them and right-sided triggers with isoproterenol testing in 55.6 % . At last follow-up , clinical improvement was 89.9 % ( 79.4 % arrhythmia-free off antiarrhythmic drugs and 10.5 % with AF controlled with antiarrhythmic drugs ) . Only 4.6 % continued to have drug-resistant AF . It was possible to safely discontinue anticoagulation in a substantial proportion of patients with no recurrence in the year after ablation ( CHADS score ⩽2 , stroke incidence of 0.06 % per year ) . The procedure-related complication rate was very low . Conclusions —Pulmonary vein isolation is safe and efficacious for long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm and control of symptoms in patients with drug-resistant AF . It obviates the need for antiarrhythmic drugs , negative dromotropic agents , and anticoagulants in a substantial proportion of patients The fundamental management strategy for atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is still debated . There is no doubt that those patients at risk of thromboembolic events should be offered anticoagulant therapy . However , it is uncertain whether rhythm control ( restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm ) or rate control ( adjustment to a physiological ventricular rate while allowing AF to continue ) is the preferred primary treatment option for the reduction of symptoms and major cardiovascular ( CV ) outcomes associated with AF . Several well conducted trials comparing the two strategies led to the conclusion that there was little to choose between them . However , guidelines leaned towards recommending rate control as the initial strategy , and reserved rhythm control for those who remained symptomatic . Recently this status quo is being increasingly challenged by the clear demonstration that left atrial catheter ablation is effective at suppressing AF resistant to traditional antiarrhythmic drugs , such as those that failed to demonstrate any superiority when compared with rate control . Also , recently introduced antiarrhythmic therapy may have superior efficacy with regard to reducing unexpected CV hospitalization , CV mortality and stroke . In addition , there is a growing perception that atrial remodelling should be best prevented by early rhythm control rather than delaying until rate control has proven unsatisfactory . For these reasons the results of large r and omised clinical trials , which recruit patients soon after the presentation of AF and compare ' aggressive ' modern rhythm control against the guideline approach of primary rate control , are eagerly awaited . In the meantime the pendulum of clinical opinion has begun to swing towards a rhythm control strategy OBJECTIVES The present study determined the incidence and time course of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) recurrences  in patients with a history of AF and fitted with an implantable monitoring device .  BACKGROUND The long-term risk of undetected recurrence of AF in patients receiving stable antiarrhythmic therapy remains uncertain . METHODS In 110 patients with a class I indication for physiologic pacing and a history of AF , a pacemaker with dedicated functions for AF detection and electrogram storage was implanted , and antiarrhythmic drug treatment was optimized . Patients were regularly followed up with evaluation of AF-related symptoms , a  resting electrocardiogram ( ECG ) , and  interrogation of device memory .  The incidence of AF recurrences lasting > 48 h in asymptomatic patients presenting in sinus rhythm ( SR ) at the respective follow-up visit constituted the primary end point of this prospect i ve study . RESULTS During 19 + /- 11 months , 678 follow-up visits were performed . Atrial fibrillation was documented in 51 patients ( 46 % ) by ECG recording and in 97 patients ( 88 % ) by a review of stored electrograms ( p < 0.0001 ) . Device interrogation revealed AF recurrences lasting > 48 h in 50 patients , 19 of whom ( 38 % ) were completely asymptomatic and in SR at subsequent follow-up . In 11 ( 16 % ) of 67 patients with device-confirmed freedom from AF for > or =3 months , AF lasting > 48 h recurred subsequently . CONCLUSIONS This prospect i ve study demonstrates a high incidence of recurrent AF despite optimized antiarrhythmic therapy . Of particular note , AF relapses > 48 h remained totally asymptomatic in a significant proportion of patients . Freedom from AF for > or =3 months did not preclude subsequent long-lasting AF recurrence BACKGROUND Maintenance of sinus rhythm is the main therapeutic goal in patients with atrial fibrillation . However , recurrences of atrial fibrillation and side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs offset the benefits of sinus rhythm . We hypothesized that ventricular rate control is not inferior to the maintenance of sinus rhythm for the treatment of atrial fibrillation . METHODS We r and omly assigned 522 patients who had persistent atrial fibrillation after a previous electrical cardioversion to receive treatment aim ed at rate control or rhythm control . Patients in the rate-control group received oral anticoagulant drugs and rate-slowing medication . Patients in the rhythm-control group underwent serial cardioversions and received antiarrhythmic drugs and oral anticoagulant drugs . The end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes , heart failure , thromboembolic complications , bleeding , implantation of a pacemaker , and severe adverse effects of drugs . RESULTS After a mean ( + /-SD ) of 2.3+/-0.6 years , 39 percent of the 266 patients in the rhythm-control group had sinus rhythm , as compared with 10 percent of the 256 patients in the rate-control group . The primary end point occurred in 44 patients ( 17.2 percent ) in the rate-control group and in 60 ( 22.6 percent ) in the rhythm-control group . The 90 percent ( two-sided ) upper boundary of the absolute difference in the primary end point was 0.4 percent ( the prespecified criterion for noninferiority was 10 percent or less ) . The distribution of the various components of the primary end point was similar in the rate-control and rhythm-control groups . CONCLUSIONS Rate control is not inferior to rhythm control for the prevention of death and morbidity from cardiovascular causes and may be appropriate therapy in patients with a recurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion BACKGROUND Azimilide dihydrochloride ( azimilide ) is an investigational antiarrhythmic drug that has been tested in patients with a variety of arrhythmias . In patients with atrial fibrillation , it has shown excellent efficacy in some previous trials and minimal efficacy in others . METHODS Patients who had symptomatic atrial fibrillation for > 48 hours but < 6 months were eligible for this multicenter , r and omized , placebo-controlled clinical trial . Patients were admitted to a hospital and r and omly assigned to receive either azimilide 125 mg or a matched placebo twice daily for 3 days and then once daily . Patients who were in sinus rhythm spontaneously or had sinus rhythm restored by electric cardioversion on day 4 were discharged from the hospital .  Recurrence of atrial fibrillation was documented by electrocardiogram . In the primary efficacy analysis , time to recurrence in the 2 treatment groups was compared with the log-rank test in the subgroup of patients with structural heart disease . Safety was assessed as deaths , adverse events , and serious adverse events . RESULTS A total of 446 patients were r and omized in the study ; 314 were in the subgroup with structural heart disease . The median time to arrhythmia recurrence in both treatment groups with structural heart disease was 13 days , and the difference between treatments was not significant ( P = .4596 , n = 314 ) . The relative risk for recurrence ( placebo : azimilide ) was 1.104 ( 95 % CI 0.849 - 1.436 ) . There was 1 death in the placebo group and 3 in the azimilide group . CONCLUSIONS Azimilide did not demonstrate clinical ly important or statistically significant efficacy in reducing the risk for arrhythmia recurrence in patients with structural heart disease who were in atrial fibrillation and converted to sinus rhythm AIMS The aim of this prospect i ve , r and omized study was to determine the efficacy of a serial external electrical cardioversion strategy in maintaining sinus rhythm after 12 months in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation . METHODS AND RESULTS Ninety patients with persistent atrial fibrillation lasting more than 72 h but less than 1 year were r and omized in a one to one fashion to repetition of up to two electrical cardioversions in the event of relapse of atrial fibrillation detected within 1 month of the previous electrical cardioversion ( Group AGG ) , or to non-treatment of atrial fibrillation relapse ( Group CTL ) .  ECGs  were scheduled at 6 h , 7 days , and 1 month .  Clinical examination and ECGs  were repeated during the 6-month and 12-month follow-up examinations .  Echocardiography  was repeated during the 6-month follow-up examination . Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were similar in the two groups . All patients were treated with antiarrhythmic drugs before electrical cardioversion and throughout follow-up . After 12 months , sinus rhythm was maintained in 53 % of Group AGG patients and in 29 % of Group CTL patients ( P<0.03 ) . After 6 months , left ventricular ejection fraction had recovered significantly only in Group AGG ( 56.8 + /- 9.0 % at enrollment vs 60.4 + /- 9.4 % at 6 months , P < 0.001 ) . CONCLUSION These results demonstrate that an aggressive policy towards persistent atrial fibrillation by means of repetition of electrical cardioversion after early atrial fibrillation recurrence is useful in maintaining sinus rhythm after 12 months BACKGROUND This prospect i ve multicenter r and omized study aim ed to compare the efficacy of 3 common ablation methods used for longst and ing permanent atrial fibrillation ( AF ) . METHODS A total of 144 patients with longst and ing permanent AF ( median duration 28 months ) were r and omly assigned to circumferential pulmonary vein ablation ( CPVA , group 1 , n = 47 ) , to pulmonary vein antrum isolation ( PVAI , group 2 , n = 48 ) or to a hybrid strategy combining ablation of complex fractionated or rapid atrial electrograms ( CFAE ) in both atria followed by a pulmonary vein antrum isolation ( CFAE + PVAI , group 3 , n = 49 ) . RESULTS Scarring in the left atrium and structural heart disease/hypertension were present in most patients ( 65 % ) . After a mean follow-up of 16 months , 11 % of patients in group 1 , 40 % of patients in group 2 and 61 % of patients in group 3 were in sinus rhythm after one procedure and with no antiarrhythmic drugs ( P < .001 ) . Sinus rhythm maintenance would increase respectively to 28 % ( group 1 ) , 83 % ( group 2 ) , and 94 % ( group 3 ) after 2 procedures and with antiarrhythmic drugs ( AADs , P < .001 ) . The AF terminated during ablation , either by conversion to sinus rhythm or organization into an atrial tachyarrhythmia , in 13 % of patients ( group 1 ) , 44 % ( group 2 ) , and 74 % ( group 3 ) respectively . CFAE alone , performed as the first step of the ablation in group 3 , organized AF in only 1 patient . CONCLUSION In this study , the hybrid AF ablation strategy including antrum isolation and CFAE ablation had the highest likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with longst and ing permanent AF . Electrical isolation of the PVs , although inadequate if performed alone , is relevant to achieve long-term sinus rhythm maintenance after ablation . Bi-atrial CFAE ablation had a minimal impact on AF termination during ablation Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) represents the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in patients with heart failure ( HF ) . AF in HF patients is associated with worsening of symptoms and also results in a substantial increase in mortality . Although HF patients in sinus rhythm have a better outcome than patients with AF , several r and omized studies investigating pharmacological rhythm control versus rate control have shown no advantage of one strategy over the other in terms of patient outcomes . Catheter-based ablation therapy is a newer therapeutic option with a rapidly evolving and changing role in the management of this arrhythmia . In the present review , the authors discuss the epidemiology , pathophysiology and prognostic significance of AF in patients with HF . Exclusively addressed are studies investigating catheter-based ablation for rhythm-control and rate-control therapies in the management of AF in HF patients Background Catheter ablation ( CA ) is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ( AF ) when compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy ( ADT ) . No r and omized studies have compared the two strategies in persistent AF . The present r and omized trial aim ed to compare the effectiveness of CA vs. ADT in treating persistent AF . Methods and results Patients with persistent AF were r and omly assigned to CA or ADT ( excluding patients with long-st and ing persistent AF ) . Primary endpoint at 12-month follow-up was defined as any episode of AF or atrial flutter lasting > 24 h that occurred after a 3-month blanking period . Secondary endpoints were any atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting > 30 s , hospitalization , and electrical cardioversion . In total , 146 patients were included ( aged 55 ± 9 years , 77 % male ) . The ADT group received class Ic ( 43.8 % ) or class III drugs ( 56.3 % ) . In an intention-to-treat analysis , 69 of 98 patients ( 70.4 % ) in the CA group and 21 of 48 patients ( 43.7 % ) in the ADT group were free of the primary endpoint ( P = 0.002 ) , implying an absolute risk difference of 26.6 % ( 95 % CI 10.0–43.3 ) in favour of CA . The proportion of patients free of any recurrence ( > 30 s ) was higher in the CA group than in the ADT group ( 60.2 vs. 29.2 % ; P < 0.001 ) and cardioversion was less frequent ( 34.7 vs. 50 % , respectively ; P = 0.018 ) . Conclusion Catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF at 12-month follow-up . Clinical Trial Registration Information NCT00863213 ( http:// clinical trials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00863213 ) Background — Atrial arrhythmias are common early after atrial fibrillation ( AF ) ablation . We hypothesized that empirical antiarrhythmic drug ( AAD ) therapy for 6 weeks after AF ablation would reduce the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias . Methods and Results — We r and omized consecutive patients with paroxysmal AF undergoing ablation to empirical antiarrhythmic therapy ( AAD group ) or no antiarrhythmic therapy ( no-AAD group ) for the first 6 weeks after ablation . In the no-AAD group , only atrioventricular nodal blocking agents were prescribed . All patients wore a transtelephonic monitor for 4 weeks after discharge and were reevaluated at 6 weeks . The primary end point of the study was a composite of ( 1 ) atrial arrhythmias lasting more than 24 hours ; ( 2 ) atrial arrhythmias associated with severe symptoms requiring hospital admission , cardioversion , or initiation/change of antiarrhythmic drug therapy ; and ( 3 ) intolerance to antiarrhythmic agent requiring drug cessation .  Of 110 enrolled patients ( age 55±9 years , 71 % male ) , 53 were r and omized to AAD and 57 to no-AAD . There was no difference in baseline characteristics between groups . During the 6 weeks after ablation , fewer patients reached the primary end point in the AAD compared with the no-AAD group ( 19 % versus 42 % ; P=0.005 ) . There remained fewer events in the AAD group ( 13 % versus 28 % ; P=0.05 ) when only end points of AF > 24 hours , arrhythmia-related hospitalization , or electrical cardioversion were compared . Conclusions — AAD treatment during the first 6 weeks after AF ablation is well tolerated and reduces the incidence of clinical ly significant atrial arrhythmias and need for cardioversion/hospitalization for arrhythmia management The safety of a method of outpatient antiarrhythmic drug loading utilizing a continuous loop event recorder was evaluated . The findings suggest that the st and ard 2-day hospital admission for drug loading is not necessary in all patients and a method of outpatient loading may be equally safe
Moreover all the anti-arrhythmic agents that are used in treatment of AF were potentially pro-arrhythmic especially in patients with coronary artery disease and structurally abnormal heart .
Although atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen during daily cardiovascular physician practice , its management remained a challenge for cardiology physician as there was no single anti-arrhythmic agents proved to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and kept its effectiveness in maintaining sinus rhythm over long term .
Some of these drugs also have serious non cardiac side effects that limit its long term use in the management of atrial fibrillation .
Several new and investigational anti-arrhythmic agents are emerging but data supporting their effectiveness and safety are still limited .