Effects of oral propafenone administration before electrical cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation: A placebo-controlled study

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1996-09, Vol.28 (3), p.700-706
• Main Authors: Bianconi, Leopoldo, Mennuni, Mauro, Lukic, Vjerica, Castro, Antonio, Chieffi, Mara, Santini, Massimo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Administration, Oral; Aged; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - administration & dosage; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - adverse effects; Antiarythmic agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - etiology; Atrial Fibrillation - physiopathology; Atrial Fibrillation - therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiovascular system; Chronic Disease; Combined Modality Therapy; Diseases of the cardiovascular system; Electric Countershock - adverse effects; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Premedication; Propafenone - administration & dosage; Propafenone - adverse effects; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); Recurrence; Single-Blind Method
• ISSN: 0735-1097; 1558-3597
• DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(96)00230-6

Objectives. Our aim was to evaluate the benefits and risks of administering propafenone before electrical defibrillation for chronic atrial fibrillation. Background. In this context, an antiarrhythmic drug—although potentially useful in preventing early recurrence of arrhythmia—could adversely affect the defibrillation threshold and reduce the cardioversion success rate. Methods. We randomly assigned 100 patients with chronic atrial fibrillaton to oral treatment with either placebo (51 patients) or 750 mg/day of propafenone (49 patients) for 48 h before administration of direct current shock. After successful cardioversion, all patients received propafenone therapy and were followed up for 48 h. Results. Before defibrillation, three patients in the propafenone group (6.1%) had reversion to sinus rhythm and one had sustained ventricular tachycardia. Shock efficacy (82.4% vs. 84.4%) and the cumulative effective energy (395 ± 258 vs. 421 ± 236 J) were not different between the placebo and propafenone groups. In the propafenone group, 11 patients had their arrhythmia transformed into atrial flutter and required a lower energy level for arrhythmia conversion than did the other patients with continued atrial fibrillation (245 ± 197 vs. 493 ± 215 J, p < 0.01); the latter patients showed a trend (p < 0.10) toward higher energy requirements than that of patients who received placebo. The incidence of asymptomatic bradyarrhythmias was higher in the propafenone group (28.9% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.02), but more patients who received placebo had early recurrence of atrial fibrillation (16.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.02). Two days after cardioversion, more patients given propafenone (73.5% vs. 52.9%, p < 0.05) were discharged from the hospital with sinus rhythm. During the in-hospital stay, propafenone was withdrawn from six patients (6.6%) because of side effects. Conclusions. Propafenone, given before electrical cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation does not affect the mean defibrillation threshold or the rate of successful arrhythmia conversion. It decreases the recurrence of atrial fibrillation early after shock, thus allowing more patients to be discharged from the hospital with sinus rhythm.