Cardiovascular Outcomes in the AFFIRM Trial (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management) An Assessment of Individual Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapies Compared With Rate Control With Propensity Score-Matched Analyses

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY

卷:58

Article

Saksena, Sanjeev¹  Slee, April¹  Waldo, Albert L.¹  Freemantle, Nick¹  Reynolds, Mathew¹  Rosenberg, Yves²  Rathod, Snehal¹  Grant, Shannon¹  Thomas, Elizabeth¹  Wyse, D. George¹ 

[1] Electrophysiol Res Fdn, Warren, NJ USA

[2] NHLBI, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA

关键词: antiarrhythmic drugs;    atrial fibrillation;    cardiovascular hospitalizations;    cardiovascular outcomes;    clinical trials;    outcomes research;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jacc.2011.07.036

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

Objectives The impact of individual antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) on mortality and hospital stay in atrial fibrillation (AF) was evaluated. Background Cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in AF patients receiving pharmacologic rhythm control therapy have not been compared with rate control therapy on the basis of AAD selection. Methods We compared CV outcomes in the AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management) trial in subgroups defined by the initial AAD selected with propensity score matched subgroups from the rate arm (Rate). Results Seven hundred twenty-nine amiodarone patients, 606 sotalol patients, and 268 Class 1C patients were matched. The composite outcome of mortality or cardiovascular hospital stays (CVH) showed better outcomes with Rate compared with amiodarone (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 1.36, p = 0.02), sotalol (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.54, p < 0.001), and Class 1C (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.56, p = 0.10). There was a nonsignificant increase in mortality with amiodarone (HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.53, p = 0.15) with the risk of non-CV death being significantly higher with amiodarone versus Rate (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.24, p = 0.04). First CVH event rates at 3 years were 47% for amiodarone, 50% for sotalol, and 44% for Class 1C versus 40%, 40%, and 36%, respectively, for Rate (amiodarone HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.40, p = 0.02, sotalol HR: 1.364, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.611, p < 0.001, Class 1C HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.60, p = 0.09). Time to CVH with intensive care unit stay or death was shorter with amiodarone (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.46, p = 0.03). Conclusions In AFFIRM, composite mortality and CVH outcomes differed for Rate and AADs due to differences in CVH; CVH event rates during follow-up were high for all cohorts, but they were higher for all groups on AADs. Death, intensive care unit hospital stay, and non-CV death were more frequent with amiodarone. (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management; NCT00000556) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 1975-85) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

【 授权许可】

Free