Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

Risk for Bleeding-Related Hospitalizations During Use of Amiodarone With Apixaban or Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone, the most effective antiarrhythmic drug in atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, thus possibly increasing anticoagulant-related risk for bleeding. OBJECTIVE: For patients receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, to compare risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations during treatment with amiodarone versus flecainide or sotalol, antiarrhythmic drugs that do not inhibit these anticoagulants' elimination. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. PATIENTS: Patients with atrial fibrillation began anticoagulant use between 1 January 2012 and 30 November 2018 and subsequently initiated treatment with study antiarrhythmic drugs. MEASUREMENTS: Time to event for bleeding-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death with or without recent (past 30 days) evidence of bleeding (secondary outcomes), adjusted with propensity score overlap weighting. RESULTS: There were 91 590 patients (mean age, 76.3 years; 52.5% female) initiating use of study anticoagulants and antiarrhythmic drugs, 54 977 with amiodarone and 36 613 with flecainide or sotalol. Risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations increased with amiodarone use (rate difference [RD], 17.5 events [95% CI, 12.0 to 23.0 events] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [CI, 1.27 to 1.63]). Incidence of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism did not increase (RD, -2.1 events [CI, -4.7 to 0.4 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.80 [CI, 0.62 to 1.03]). The risk for death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 9.1 events [CI, 5.8 to 12.3 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.66 [CI, 1.35 to 2.03]) was greater than that for other deaths (RD, 5.6 events [CI, 0.5 to 10.6 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.00 to 1.31]) (HR comparison: P = 0.003). The increased incidence of bleeding-related hospitalizations for rivaroxaban (RD, 28.0 events [CI, 18.4 to 37.6 events] per 1000 person-years) was greater than that for apixaban (RD, 9.1 events [CI, 2.8 to 15.3 events] per 1000 person-years) (P = 0.001). LIMITATION: Possible residual confounding. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation treated with amiodarone during apixaban or rivaroxaban use had greater risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations than those treated with flecainide or sotalol. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies.

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

Use of Antiarrhythmic Medications in Medicare Part D Patients With an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Ventricular Tachycardia.

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is common in cardiomyopathy patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. This analysis evaluated antiarrhythmic medication use and change in use over time in patients with VT and structural heart disease. Query of Medicare claims identified patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and VT. Patients with atrial fibrillation or supraventricular tachycardia were excluded. Two cohorts were created of patients enrolled in Medicare Part D for the 12 months before 2007 and 2012. Patients were identified through a search for antiarrhythmic medication fills with a supply covering January 1 of the cohort year. Adjusted logistic regression modeling evaluated the association between patient characteristics and antiarrhythmic medication use. The 2007 (n = 2,334) and 2012 (n = 3,892) Medicare Part D cohorts had similar demographics: median age 76 years, 64%-67% male, and 87%-89% white. Of the 2007 cohort, 1,380 (59%) patients were on a beta blocker, and 484 (20.7%) were on an antiarrhythmic medication (70% amiodarone and 20% sotalol). Between 2007 and 2012, there was a statistically significant higher use of any antiarrhythmic medication (p = 0.014), beta blockers (p <0.0001), mexiletine (p = 0.005), and ranolazine (p <0.0001), while amiodarone use remained unchanged (p = 0.53). After multivariable adjustment, male gender and renal disease were associated with higher antiarrhythmic medication use. In conclusion, although antiarrhythmic medication and beta blocker use in patients with VT increased over time, <1 in 4 patients were on an antiarrhythmic medication and only 65% of the patients were on a beta blocker.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone versus amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation: results for Serbia.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that dronedarone is associated with significantly fewer adverse effects and treatment discontinuations, and a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality, compared with amiodarone. Introduction of dronedarone in clinical practice is limited by its higher cost than amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol. AIM: To estimate cost-effectiveness of dronedarone versus amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We constructed a Markov model, which was then simulated by Monte Carlo simulation using 1,000 virtual patients. Costs and outcomes were estimated from the societal perspective and discounted at 3% annually. A lifetime horizon and three-month cycle length were used. The main outcome measurement was the number of years spent without stroke. Values of transition probabilities and therapy outcomes were estimated from available literature. The prices of health services and drugs were obtained from the Republic Institute for Health Insurance Tariff Book and Drug List A and from the drug developer. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness shows that the dronedarone treatment option has the most advantageous relationship, where, for one year without a stroke, the total cost is €1,779.23. In the case of the amiodarone therapy option, for one year without a stroke €3,845.10 is needed, for propafenone €4,674.20, while for sotalol the sum is €14,973.89. Estimated annual costs for patients with first-detected AF in Serbia were €610. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our model indicate that dronedarone is a cost-effective therapy compared with amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol in patients with AF, if the outcome measurement is the number of years spent without stroke.

Assessment of sotalol prescribing in a community hospital: opportunities for clinical pharmacist involvement.

OBJECTIVE: Due to risk of serious adverse drug events (ADEs) sotalol use is limited in renal insufficiency and heart failure. To reduce potential life-threatening ADEs, medication safety initiatives that ensure appropriate dosing of sotalol are necessary. Pharmacist-managed renal dosing assessment programmes ensure appropriate dosing of renally eliminated medications. A prospective medication safety evaluation was conducted to assess the need to include sotalol in an existing renal dosing assessment programme as well as the impact of clinical pharmacist assessment on sotalol prescribing. METHODS: Patients in a 736-bed community hospital, receiving sotalol during a 6-week period, were prospectively evaluated. Information was collected on indication, dosing, concomitant disease states and medications, renal function, QTc length, symptoms of toxicity and readmissions. Pharmacist recommendations were made when necessary and were followed to determine acceptance rate and patient outcomes. KEY FINDINGS: Thirty-six patients were prescribed sotalol for atrial tachyarrhythmias. Thirty-two (89%) were dosed inappropriately with respect to renal function. Twenty (56%) had left-ventricular dysfunction as defined by an ejection fraction of ≤ 40%. At time of initial assessment, 15 (42%) were exhibiting signs of potential sotalol toxicity. Pharmacists provided recommendations regarding discontinuation or dosage adjustment on 32 patients with a 38% full and a 12% partial acceptance rate. All-cause readmission rates for patients receiving appropriate therapy, including those after pharmacist recommendations were accepted (Group A; n=16), were compared to those remaining on inappropriate therapy (Group B; n=20). Readmission rates within 6 months differed between groups (31% for Group A, 55% for Group B; P=0.095, odds ratio 3.7). CONCLUSION: This medication safety evaluation suggests the need for pharmacist assessment in patients receiving sotalol. Dosage adjustment or avoidance in patients with renal insufficiency, heart failure and other relative contraindications is often necessary to avoid toxicity. Sotalol was inappropriately prescribed in the majority of patients secondary to renal insufficiency. Based on this evaluation, it was recommended to add sotalol to the institution's pharmacist-managed renal dosing adjustment programme. Ensuring clinical pharmacist assessment when sotalol is prescribed can help reduce potential life-threatening ADEs and hospital readmissions.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: beyond beta-blockers.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequent complication of cardiac surgery that increases patient morbidity, length of stay, and hospital costs. A substantial body of evidence exists evaluating various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods to decrease the occurrence of POAF in an effort to decrease its burden on the health care system. Evidence-based guidelines support the use of beta-blockers as standard prophylaxis of POAF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Traditional prophylactic therapy for POAF targets the sympathetic nervous system, refractory period, and atrial conduction. However, associations between the development of POAF and the inflammatory process, oxidative stress, and atrial remodeling have prompted the investigation of novel therapies targeting these processes. To evaluate the role of pharmacologic strategies beyond beta-blockers in the prevention of POAF, we conducted a search of the PubMed database to identify studies published from 1950-February 2009. Emphasis was placed on how these therapies could be used in patients intolerant to beta-blockers or as additive therapy in high-risk patients. We found that sufficient evidence exists to recommend the use of amiodarone, sotalol, and possibly magnesium as monotherapy in patients unable to take beta-blockers or as add-on therapy for the prevention of POAF. Currently, available evidence does not support the use of propafenone, procainamide, digoxin, thiazolidinediones, triiodothyronine, or calcium channel blockers in the prevention of POAF. Preliminary evidence suggests that dofetilide, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, omega-3 fatty acids, ascorbic acid, N-acetylcysteine, and sodium nitroprusside may be effective in preventing POAF. Additional large-scale, adequately powered clinical studies are needed to determine the benefit of these agents before they can be considered for routine use.

Intravenous magnesium sulphate and sotalol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of magnesium sulphate compared with sotalol, and to assess the clinical effectiveness of magnesium sulphate compared with placebo in the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have had a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched from December 2003 to May 2007. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed, subjected to data extraction using a standard template and quality assessment using published criteria. A simple short-term economic model was developed, informed by a systematic review of economic evaluations and populated with data from a review of costing/resource-use studies and other published studies. The cost-effectiveness of magnesium sulphate as prophylaxis was estimated for a set of base-case assumptions and the robustness of these results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two papers met the inclusion criteria reporting 15 trials which all compared magnesium sulphate with placebo or control. They ranged in size from 15 to 176 patients randomised, and were conducted in Europe, the USA and Canada. The standard of reporting was generally poor, with details of key methodological attributes difficult to elucidate. No trials were identified that specifically aimed to compare magnesium sulphate with sotalol. Of 1070 patients in the pooled magnesium group, 230 (21%) developed postoperative AF, compared with 307 of 1031 (30%) patients in the placebo or (control) group. Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model generated a pooled odds ratio (OR) that was significantly less than 1.0 [OR=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.79, test for overall effect p<0.0001], but with statistically significant heterogeneity (I2=63.4%, p=0.0005). Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were notable as they had relatively lower ORs in favour of magnesium sulphate. When these were removed from the analyses the pooled OR remained statistically significant, but heterogeneity no longer remained significant. These two studies tended to impart a highly significant reduction in the odds of AF to whichever subgroup they were analysed in. When studies were ordered by total duration of prophylaxis, an apparent relationship between duration and odds of AF was evident, with decreasing odds of AF as duration of prophylaxis increased. This was confirmed by linear regression analysis (R2=0.743, p<0.001). When the data were grouped into three classes according to duration, a statistically significant intervention effect was only present for the longest duration (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.23, p=0.00001). Statistically significant intervention effects were associated with the initiation of prophylaxis 12 hours or more before surgery (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.44, test for overall effect p=0.00001, fixed-effects model) and less than 12 hours before surgery or during the surgery itself (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.97, test for overall effect p = 0.03, fixed-effects model), but not when prophylaxis was initiated at the end of surgery or postsurgery (OR=0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22, p=0.37, fixed-effects model). When studies were ordered by total dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate (<25 g), the odds of AF were independent of the dose. A notable exception was that for a total dose of 9 g magnesium sulphate; here the odds of AF were significantly reduced relative to the control group, although this may be explained by the fact that these studies had excluded patients who were on antiarrhythmic drugs and so may have been at higher risk of AF. Sixty-three potentially relevant references about cost-effectiveness were identified, but no economic evaluations of intravenous magnesium alone as prophylaxis against AF following CABG, compared with sotalol as prophylaxis or no prophylaxis, were identified. Studies reporting resource use by patients with AF following CABG suggest that while AF significantly increased inpatient stays, by up to 2.3 days in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 3.4 days on the ward, differences in length of stay and costs between patients receiving prophylaxis and those not receiving prophylaxis were not statistically significant. In the base-case analysis, magnesium sulphate prophylaxis resulted in 0.081 fewer cases of AF at an incremental cost of 2.55 pounds sterling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 32 pounds sterling per AF case avoided. The estimated difference in average length of stay between the prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis strategies was only 0.24 days, despite a large assumed difference of 3 days for patients experiencing AF in each group (1 extra day in the ICU and 2 extra days on the ward). In a deterministic sensitivity analysis the greatest variation in ICERs was observed for input parameters relating to the baseline risk of AF following CABG and the effectiveness of prophylaxis, cost of prophylaxis and the resource consequences of postoperative AF. The largest ICER (2092 pounds sterling) in the sensitivity analysis was associated with increasing the length of patients' preoperative stay. In the base case it was assumed that admission routines would be identical under both strategies. However, patients receiving prophylaxis by intravenous infusion may have longer preoperative stays. In a probabilistic analysis the majority of the simulations were associated with improved outcomes (in this case fewer cases of AF), but also higher costs. Prophylaxis was the dominant strategy (better outcome at lower cost) in about 41% of the simulations using the base-case assumptions. Under an alternative scenario where patients receiving prophylaxis are admitted for longer before their operation, to receive their initial infusion, the proportion of simulations where prophylaxis dominates fell to around 5%. The probability of being cost-effective was 99% at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 2000 pounds sterling per AF case avoided and 100% at a WTP threshold of 5000 pounds sterling per AF case avoided under the base-case assumptions. Under the alternative scenario of longer preoperative stays the probability of being cost-effective at these two threshold values fell to 48% and 93%, respectively. It is unclear what the appropriate decision threshold should be, given that this model used intermediate rather than final outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs were identified that specifically aimed to compare intravenous magnesium with sotalol as prophylaxis for AF in patients undergoing CABG. Intravenous magnesium, compared with placebo or control, is effective in preventing postoperative AF, as confirmed by a statistically significant intervention effect based on pooled analysis of 15 RCTs. It was also found that AF was less likely to occur when a longer duration of prophylaxis was used, and the earlier that prophylaxis is started; however, this finding was associated with two RCTs that had more favourable results than the other trials. No clear relationship between dose and AF was observed, although a lower constant dose rate was associated with the lowest odds of AF. Further research should investigate the relationship between dose, dose rate, duration of prophylaxis, timing of initiation of therapy and patient characteristics, such as degree of risk for AF. This will provide stronger evidence for the optimum delivery of intravenous magnesium in patients undergoing CABG. In the base-case analysis in the economic model, magnesium sulphate prophylaxis reduced the number of postoperative AF cases at a modest increase in cost. The results of the economic analysis are highly sensitive to variation in certain key parameters. Prophylaxis is less likely to be a cost-effective option if it requires changes in admission routines that result in longer preoperative stays than would be the case without prophylaxis.

Prophylactic therapy to prevent atrial arrhythmia after cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with adverse outcomes and increased costs. Accordingly, therapy should be provided to prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation. The evaluation of therapies to do so is an area of active investigation with significant recent advances. The purpose of this review is to summarize these recent advances in the context of our previous knowledge base regarding the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evaluations of therapy to prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation have raised the prominence of prophylactic amiodarone, redefined the efficacy of prophylactic standard beta-blockers in contemporary cardiac surgical populations, provided further evidence for the use of prophylactic sotalol, magnesium, and atrial pacing, and identified new approaches, including the use of combination therapy, for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation. SUMMARY: According to newly released ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines, use of standard beta-blockers or amiodarone to prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation have a level of evidence of A. Use of prophylactic sotalol has a level of evidence of B, while the use of prophylactic intravenous magnesium or atrial pacing has a lower level of evidence. The use of novel and combination therapies continues to be an area of active investigation.

A micromethod for the quantification of atenolol in plasma using high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection: therapeutic drug monitoring of two patients with severe coronary insufficiency before cardiac surgery.

A simple, rapid, selective, and sensitive analytical method was developed for the quantification of atenolol in small volumes of plasma, by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Only 200 microL of plasma was used for chromatographic analysis. Separation was performed on a C18 reverse-phase column (4 microm) using a binary mobile phase consisting of 0.05 M of phosphate buffer, pH 5.5, and methanol (80:20, vol/vol) at a flow rate of 0.7 mL/minute. The retention times of atenolol and of the internal standard (sotalol) were 12.7 and 10.4 minutes, respectively. Validation of this analytical method showed a good linear correlation (8-2000 ng/mL), high sensitivity (quantification limit: 8 ng/ml and detection limit: 4 ng/mL), accuracy of 99.3%, and intraday and interday precision of 5.3% and 6.9%, respectively. Absolute recovery was 93.7%. The method was found to be robust, with acceptable stability. The analytical method was validated by the quantification of atenolol in plasma obtained from 2 patients with unstable angina, scheduled for myocardium revascularization surgery, who were chronically treated with 50 mg of atenolol administered per os once a day. The method developed was found to be adequate for use in pharmacokinetic studies and in adjusted dose pharmacotherapy.

A benefit-risk assessment of class III antiarrhythmic agents.

The prevalence of arrhythmia in the population is increasing as more people survive for longer with cardiovascular disease. It was once thought that antiarrhythmic therapy could save life, however, it is now evident that antiarrhythmic therapy should be administrated with the purpose of symptomatic relief. Since many patients experience a decrease in physical performance as well as a diminished quality of life during arrhythmia there is still a need for antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The development of new antiarrhythmic agents has changed the focus from class I to class III agents since it became evident that with class I drug therapy the prevalence of mortality is considerably higher. This review focuses on the benefits and risks of known and newer class III antiarrhythmic agents. The benefits discussed include the ability to maintain sinus rhythm in persistent atrial fibrillation patients, and reducing the need for implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock/antitachycardia therapy, since no class III antiarrhythmic agents have proven survival benefit. The risks discussed mainly focus on pro-arrhythmia as torsade de pointes ventricular tachycardia.

New antiarrhythmic agents for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: United States drug market response as an indicator of acceptance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how well dofetilide and Betapace AF (sotalol, approved solely for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter), with their detailed dosing and monitoring guidelines for safety, were accepted into clinical practice during the 2 calendar years after their introduction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the number of new, refill, and total prescriptions of all antiarrhythmic agents in the United States from April 2000-December 2001 to assess use of dofetilide and Betapace AF in the drug market. Both were prescribed very infrequently throughout the study period. In addition, the infrequent reported use of these drugs for patients with atrial fibrillation and flutter indicated poor acceptance of these agents by prescribing physicians. We speculated that the restricted distribution and required educational program for dofetilide, as well as the availability of generic sotalol products, may have discouraged physicians from prescribing both dofetilide and Betapace AE CONCLUSION: A common goal for both the dofetilide risk-management program and the creation of a sotalol product indicated solely for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter was to provide safer treatment for patients with these arrhythmias. Unfortunately, limited penetration of dofetilide and Betapace AF into the U.S. market suggests that drugs without a risk-management program or detailed dosing guidelines were more likely than dofetilide or Betapace AF to be selected for treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.

Cost evaluation of rhythm control methods for atrial fibrillation: evidence from CTAF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a highly prevalent arrhythmia that is difficult to treat and generates important health care costs. One consideration in the selection of various therapeutic options is the cost of a given treatment compared to that of alternatives. The Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation (CTAF) evaluated the effectiveness of sinus rhythm maintenance with amiodarone compared to propafenone or sotalol in a prospective, randomized fashion. A subsequent CTAF substudy of the medical costs associated with amiodarone vs. propafenone/sotalol found that amiodarone decreased AF-related costs. This paper reviews the results of the CTAF cost-analysis substudy in the context of other analyses in the literature of the cost effectiveness of amiodarone in AF. The costs associated with amiodarone therapy are no greater than for other sinus rhythm maintenance drugs, and for some cost categories and some patient subgroups are likely to be less, despite amiodarone's greater therapeutic efficacy. However, additional considerations are important in evaluating the clinical place of amiodarone, including its adverse effect and pharmacokinetic profile. As well, the results of recent randomized clinical trials have highlighted the limitations of sinus rhythm maintenance as a primary therapeutic objective in AF. The decision about whether and at what point to use amiodarone in a given patient requires a careful analysis of the individual case, in terms of symptomatology during AF, the response to previous treatment regimes, and risk factors for various forms of adverse drug reactions.

Amiodarone reduces procedures and costs related to atrial fibrillation in a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, and engenders significant health care costs. The impact of various treatment options for atrial fibrillation on hospital costs has not been evaluated in a randomized trial. METHODS: We analysed 1-year follow-up data on 392 patients randomized to low dose amiodarone (200 mg. day(-1)) or alternative first-line therapy (sotalol or propafenone) in a multicentre trial (Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation, CTAF). RESULTS: Patients in the amiodarone group had fewer electrical cardioversions (65 vs 109 for patients in the sotalol/propafenone group, P<0.0001), and pacemaker insertions (4 vs 11, P=0.07). The average amiodarone patient spent fewer days in hospital (0.47 vs 0.97, P=0.01), and incurred lower costs ($532 vs $898, P=0.03), for admissions where atrial fibrillation was the admitting diagnosis. Average total hospital costs per patient for all admissions, as well as average combined hospital and physician costs per patient, showed wide variations within the treatment arms and were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: For patients in whom antiarrhythmic drug therapy is indicated, low dose amiodarone significantly reduces atrial fibrillation-related costs by reducing the number of atrial fibrillation-related procedures.

Does prophylaxis against atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery reduce length of stay or hospital costs?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common after cardiac surgery and may result in stroke, need for permanent pacemaker, hemodynamic instability, and sustained AF. Studies determining the effect of prophylaxis against AF in cardiac surgery on length of stay (LOS) and hospital cost were reviewed. A MEDLINE search from January 1966-November 2000 was conducted using the medical subject heading (MeSH) "atrial fibrillation." The search was limited to clinical trials in the English language. In five of the seven studies reviewed, the frequency of postoperative AF was significantly reduced with prophylactic amiodarone or sotalol. In only one study were LOS and costs significantly reduced. Whereas there is strong evidence that prophylactic drug therapy reduces the frequency of postoperative AF, there is little evidence of an economic advantage. Future studies are warranted that examine costs beyond initial hospitalization; compare prophylaxis administered selectively to high-risk patients with prophylaxis administered universally; and compare prophylaxis with the combination of rate control and anticoagulation with cardioversion if AF persists.