TRIPASS XR تري باس

 

175

showed significantly lower rates of 1-month survival and 1-month survival with

favorable neurologic outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with

shockable rhythm, who received epinephrine before hospital arrival, relative to

patients who did not receive epinephrine (p < 0.001).

On the basis of these trials, it would be reasonable to use a single dose of

vasopressin 40 units as an alternative to either the first or second dose of epinephrine

1 mg in the treatment of VF (or pulseless VT).

CASE 15-9, QUESTION 3: One of the physicians delivering ACLS for M.N. wants to initiate corticosteroid

therapy. What is the evidence supporting the use of corticosteroid therapy in patients experiencing cardiac

arrest?

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial performed

by Mentzelopoulos et al.

176 assessed the impact of using two different strategies for

managing in-hospital cardiac arrest patients on: (a) survival to hospital discharge

with favorable neurologic status; and (b) probability for return of spontaneous

circulation for 20 minutes or longer. One group of patients received epinephrine (1

mg/CPR cycle), vasopressin (20 IU/CPR cycle), and corticosteroid therapy

(methylprednisolone 40 mg during first CPR cycle, then hydrocortisone 300 mg/day

[for post-resuscitation shock] for up to 7 days, followed by taper). The control group

received epinephrine in combination with saline placebo. Epinephrine–vasopressin–

corticosteroid recipients exhibited superior rates of probability for return of

spontaneous circulation for ≥20 minutes (83.9% vs. 65.9%; OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.39–

6.40; p = 0.005), and survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurologic status

(13.9% vs. 5.1%; OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.17–9.20; p = 0.02), compared to the control

group.

CASE 15-9, QUESTION 4: Because M.N. has an IV site and the time from cardiac arrest to ACLS was

brief, epinephrine was chosen and a 1-mg bolus was given, followed with a 20-mL normal saline flush. The arm

was elevated for 20 seconds to ensure adequate delivery. Thirty seconds after administration a 200-J shock is

given (via biphasic manual defibrillator), but it fails to convert VF. What can be done now?

The most recently updated ACLS guideline calls for the use of amiodarone in

cases of VF or pulseless VT that do not respond to CPR, shocks, and a

vasopressor.

167

IV AMIODARONE AND LIDOCAINE

The effect of amiodarone on VF or pulseless VT was studied in the ARREST

(Amiodarone for Resuscitation of Refractory Sustained Ventricular

Tachyarrhythmias) trial.

171 This study was conducted in patients who experienced

cardiac arrest in an out-of-hospital situation with therapy given by paramedics in the

field. Patients who failed three stacked shocks and one dose of epinephrine with an

electrical countershock were randomly assigned to amiodarone 300 mg IV bolus or

placebo. This was followed by other antiarrhythmic agents historically used in ACLS

(2,000 guidelines: lidocaine, procainamide, or bretylium) if the clinicians desired.

Amiodarone significantly increased the chance of survival to hospital admission

(44% vs. 34% of placebo group; p = 0.03), but survival to hospital discharge was

not changed. Of note, 66% of patients received antiarrhythmic drug treatment for

pulseless VT or VF after amiodarone administration.

The ALIVE (Amiodarone vs. Lidocaine in Ventricular Ectopy, n = 347) trial

directly compared IV amiodarone 300 mg to lidocaine 1 to 1.5 mg/kg bolus.

173

In this

trial, patients needed to fail three stacked shocks and epinephrine plus an additional

shock to be eligible for randomization to either amiodarone or lidocaine.

Amiodarone was given as an initial dose of 5 mg/kg followed by a shock. If

unsuccessful, a dose of 2.5 mg/kg was given followed by a subsequent shock.

Lidocaine was given as a 1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by a shock. If therapy failed, then

a second bolus of 1.5 mg/kg was used with a subsequent shock. If the first

antiarrhythmic drug failed, other routine antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest (per

2000 ACLS guidelines: e.g., procainamide, bretylium) could be tried. Patients given

amiodarone were 90% more likely to experience the primary outcome, survival to

hospital admission, than those given lidocaine (p = 0.009). Unfortunately, no

significant advantage to hospital discharge occurred (5% vs. 3%).

On the basis of these findings, amiodarone is the only antiarrhythmic agent with

proven ability to improve return of spontaneous circulation and short-term survival

versus other antiarrhythmic therapy. However, it has not yet been shown to improve

survival to hospital discharge.

M.N. is at serious risk of death as a result of VF. However, as long as M.N.

remains in VF, it is appropriate to continue active therapy. If M.N. degenerates into

asystole after this long period of VF, then the resuscitation efforts should be

discontinued. However, if a patient only had a brief period of VF before having

asystole, it is prudent to apply active therapy.

Pulseless Electrical Activity

CASE 15-10

QUESTION 1: J.D. is an 80-year-old woman who experiences cardiac arrest in the hospital. J.D. was in

respiratory failure upon admission to the ED, where she underwent immediate intubation, had a peripheral IV

placed, and upon transfer to the MICU, placed on assist/control mechanical ventilation with FiO2

of 100%. A

rhythm is noted on the monitor, but no femoral pulse is felt. M.N. is in PEA. How should J.D. be treated?

The clinical situation in which there is organized electrical activity on the monitor

without a palpable pulse is called PEA. Although electrical activity is present, it

fails to stimulate the contractile process. Virtually all patients in true PEA die.

However, not all patients who present with a rhythm and no pulse are in true PEA.

Therefore, it is important to rule out treatable causes in patients who appear to be in

PEA. The major treatable causes are hypovolemia, hypoxia, acidosis, hyperkalemia,

hypokalemia, hypothermia, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, acute coronary

syndrome, trauma, and drug overdose. In the absence of an identifiable cause, the

focus of resuscitation is to administer high-quality CPR, and after the initial rhythm

check, resume CPR during the establishment of IV or IO (intraosseous) access.

167

p. 331

p. 332

Figure 15-15 Asystole. There is no electrical activity detected in the heart resulting in a very low amplitude

undulating waveform.

Once IV or IO access becomes available, administer epinephrine 1 mg every 3 to

5 minutes or give one dose of vasopressin 40 units in place of the first or second

dose of epinephrine, as published studies have failed to demonstrate a survival

advantage of either vasopressor for patients experiencing PEA.

167,169,170

Asystole

CASE 15-11

QUESTION 1: K.K., a 73-year-old man, has a past medical history significant for hypertension and

diverticulitis. Upon arrival at the OR for surgical correction of pericardial and pleural effusions, K.K. received

etomidate, fentanyl, lidocaine, and succinylcholine. During placement of a double-lumen endotracheal tube, K.K.

goes into cardiac arrest. The ECG shows a flat line, and the patient is determined to be in asystole (Fig. 15-15).

Is this rhythm treatable?

Lack of electrical activity or asystole, like PEA, carries a grave prognosis. Its

development usually indicates a prolonged arrest, which may explain its poor

response to treatment. However, a few patients will go directly from a sinus rhythm

into asystole and may be resuscitated. Enhanced parasympathetic tone, possibly

attributable to a vagal reaction, manipulation of the airway from intubation,

suctioning or insertion of an oral airway, or chest compression, may play a role in

inhibiting supraventricular and ventricular pacemakers.

168

A post hoc analysis performed by Wenzel et al.

168 demonstrated superior survival

rates at the time of hospital admission in vasopressin-treated patients, compared with

epinephrine-treated patients. However, no difference in intact neurologic survival

was noted between the two treatment groups. Consequently, providers may choose to

administer vasopressin 40 units IV (in place of the first or second dose of

epinephrine) or epinephrine 1 mg IV every 3 to 5 minutes.

CASE 15-11, QUESTION 2: Does the timing of epinephrine dosing impact survival to hospital discharge in

patients with non-shockable rhythms (asystole or PEA)?

A post hoc analysis of data from the Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation study

showed a stepwise reduction in survival to hospital discharge (primary study end

point) with each 3-minute delay to epinephrine: (a) 1 to 3 minutes (OR 1.0, reference

group); (b) 4 to 6 minutes (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82–1.00; p = 0.055); (c) 7 to 9

minutes (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63–0.88; p < 0.001); and (d) >9 minutes (OR, 0.63;

95% CI, 0.52–0.76; p < 0.001).

177

CASE 15-11, QUESTION 3: What is the long-term prognosis for patients with non-shockable rhythms?

Goto et al.

175 assessed the impact of pre-hospital epinephrine administration on

long-term outcomes seen in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with nonshockable rhythms.

176 Epinephrine recipients showed superior 1-month survival rates

compared to patients who did not receive pre-hospital epinephrine (3.9% vs. 2.2%;

p < 0.001). However, pre-hospital administration of epinephrine did not result in

improved 1-month favorable neurologic outcomes (p = 0.62).

KEY REFERENCES AND WEBSITES

A full list of references for this chapter can be found at

http://thepoint.lww.com/AT11e. Below are the key references and websites for this

chapter, with the corresponding reference number in this chapter found in parentheses

after the reference.

Key References

Cohen MIet al. PACES/HRS expert consensus statement on the management of the asymptomatic young patient

with a Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW, Ventricular Preexcitation) Electrocardiographic pattern. Heart Rhythm.

2012;9:1006. (101)

Drew BJ et al. Prevention of torsade de pointes in hospital settings: a scientific statement from the American

Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation [published correction appears in

Circulation. 2010;122:e440]. Circulation. 2010;121:1047. (147)

Epstein AE et al. 2012 ACC/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based

Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:e6. (130)

Giugliano RP et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N EnglJ Med. 2013;369:2093. (84)

Granger CB et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N EnglJ Med. 2011;365:981. (83)

Hazinski MF, ed. Highlights of the 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for CPR and ECC. Dallas, TX:

American Heart Association; 2010. (167)

January CT et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation.

Circulation. 2014;130:e199–e267 (11).

Le Heuzey et al. A short-term, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of

dronedarone versus amiodarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: the DIONYSOS study. J Cardiovasc

Electrophysiol. 2010;21:597. (75)

Mentzelopoulos SD et al. Vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine and neurologically favorable survival after inhospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:270. (176)

Morillo CA et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drugs as first line treatment of paroxysmal atrial

fibrillation (RAAFT-2). A randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:692. (90)

Pederson CT et al. HER/HRS/APHRS expert consensus on ventricular arrhythmias. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:e166.

(103)

Key Website

Blaufuss Medical Multimedia Laboratories ECG Tutorial. http://www.blaufuss.org.

COMPLETE REFERENCES CHAPTER 15 CARDIAC

ARRHYTHMIAS

Anon. Arrhythmias and conduction disorders (Chapter 213). In: Porter RS, Kaplan JL, eds. The Merck Manual of

Diagnosis & Therapy. 19th ed. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck & Co, Inc.; 2011:(E-book).

Sampson KJ, Kass RS. Antiarrhythmic drugs. In: Brunton LL, ed. Goodman & Gilman’s: The Pharmacologic

Basis of Therapeutics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 2011:815–848.

Menezes AR et al. Atrial fibrillation in the 21st Century: a current understanding of risk factors and primary

prevention strategies. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:394–409.

Schnabel RB et al. Development of a risk score for atrial fibrillation (Framingham Heart Study): a communitybased cohort study. Lancet. 2009;373:739.

Wang TJ et al. Obesity and the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation. JAMA. 2004;292:2471.

Albers GW et al. Stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:727.

Falk RH et al. Digoxin for converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. A randomized, double-blinded

trial. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:503.

January CT et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of

the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the

Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014;130:e199–e267.

Rawles JM et al. Time of occurrence, duration, and ventricular rate of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the effect of

digoxin. Br Heart J. 1990;63:225.

Roberts SA et al. Effectiveness and costs of digoxin treatment for atrial fibrillation and flutter. Am J Cardiol.

1993;72:567.

Beasley R et al. Exercise heart rates at different serum digoxin concentrations in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;290:9.

Farshi R et al. Ventricular rate control in chronic atrial fibrillation during daily activity and programmed exercise: a

crossover open-labelstudy of five drug regimens. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:304.

Woodland C et al. The digoxin-propafenone interaction: characterization of a mechanism using renal tubular cell

monolayers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;283:39.

Freitag D et al. Digoxin-quinidine and digoxin-amiodarone interactions: frequency of occurrence and monitoring in

Australian repatriation hospitals. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1995;20:179.

Weiner P et al. Clinical course of acute atrial fibrillation treated with rapid digitalization. Am Heart J.

1983;105:223.

Yancy CW et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of heart failure: executive summary.

Circulation. 2013;128:1810–1852.

White CM. Catecholamines and their blockade in congestive heart failure. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998;55:676.

Hariman RJ et al. Reversal of the cardiovascular effects of verapamil by calcium and sodium: differences

between electrophysiologic and hemodynamic responses. Circulation. 1979;59:797.

Lang J et al. Effect of gradual rise in plasma calcium concentration on the impairment of atrioventricular nodal

conduction due to verapamil. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1986;8:6.

Salerno DM et al. Intravenous verapamil for treatment of multifocal atrial tachycardia with and without calcium

pretreatment. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:623.

Pauli-Magnus C et al. Characterization of the major metabolites of verapamil as substrates and inhibitors of Pglycoprotein. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;293:376.

Falk RH, Leavitt JI. Digoxin for atrial fibrillation: a drug whose time has gone? Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:573.

Zarowitz BJ, Gheorghiade M. Optimal heart rate control for patients with chronic atrial fibrillation: are

pharmacologic choices truly changing? Am Heart J. 1992;123:1401.

Rawles JM. What is meant by a “controlled” ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation? Br Heart J. 1990;63:157.

Van Gelder IC et al. Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med.

2010;362:1363.

Wann LS et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation

(updating the 2006 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart

Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:157.

Wyse DG et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N EnglJ Med.

2002;347:1825.

Van Gelder IC et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial

fibrillation. N EnglJ Med. 2002;347:1834.

Gronefeld GC et al. Impact of rate versus rhythm control on quality of life in patients with persistent atrial

fibrillation. Results from a prospective randomized study. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1430.

Opolski G et al. Rate control vs rhythm control in patients with nonvalvular persistent atrial fibrillation. The results

of the Polish How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (HOT CAFÉ) Study. Chest. 2004;126:476.

Carlsson J et al. Randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control inpersistent atrial fibrillation: the Strategies

of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1690.

Roy D et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med.

2008;358:2667.

Keefe DL et al. Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias: their evaluation and therapy. Am Heart J. 1986;111:1150.

Morris JJ et al. Electrical conversion of atrial fibrillation: immediate and long-term results and selection of patients.

Ann Intern Med. 1966;65:216.

Bjerkelund CJ, Orning OM. The efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in preventing embolism related to DC electrical

conversion of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1969;23:208.

Klein AL et al. Role of transesophageal echocardiography- guided cardioversion of patients with atrial fibrillation.

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:691.

de Divitiis M et al. Right atrial appendage thrombosis in atrial fibrillation: its frequency and its clinical predictors. J

Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1867.

Falk RH, Podrid PJ. Electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. In: Falk RH, Podrid PJ, eds. Atrial Fibrillation:

Mechanisms and Management. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992:181.

Kowey PR et al. Acute treatment of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81(5A):16C.

Dunn AB et al. Efficacy and cost-analysis of ibutilide. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:1233.

Stambler BS et al. Efficacy and safety of repeated doses of ibutilide for rapid conversion of atrial flutter or

fibrillation. Ibutilide Repeat Dose Study Investigators. Circulation. 1996;94:1613.

Ellenbogen KA et al. Efficacy of ibutilide for termination of atrial fibrillation and flutter. Am J Cardiol.

1996;78(8A):42.

Naccarelli GV et al. Electrophysiology and pharmacology of ibutilide. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78(8A):12.

Kowey PR et al. Safety and risk/benefit analysis of ibutilide for acute conversion of atrial fibrillation/flutter. Am J

Cardiol. 1996;78(8A):46.

Boriani G et al. Oral propafenone to convert recent-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with and without underlying

heart disease. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:621.

Azpitarte J et al. Value of single oral loading dose of propafenone in converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation.

Results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Eur Heart J. 1997;18:1649.

Botto GL et al. Conversion of recent onset atrial fibrillation with single loading oral dose of propafenone: is inhospital admission absolutely necessary? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1996;19(11 Pt 2):1939.

Capucci A et al. Effectiveness of loading oral flecainide for converting recent-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus

rhythm in patients without organic heart disease or with only systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70:69.

Goy JJ et al. Restoration of sinus rhythm with flecainide in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol.

1988;62:38D.

Oral H et al. Facilitating transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation with ibutilide pretreatment. N EnglJ Med.

1999;340:1849.

Hammill SC et al. Propafenone for atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1988; 61:473.

Porterfield JG, Porterfield LM. Therapeutic efficacy and safety of oral propafenone for atrial fibrillation. Am J

Cardiol. 1989;63:114.

Pritchett EL et al. Propafenone treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal supraventricular arrhythmias. A

randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial inpatients tolerating oral therapy. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:539.

Pietersen AH, Hellemann H. Usefulness of flecainide for prevention of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and flutter.

Danish-Norwegian Flecainide Multicenter Study Group. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:713.

Anderson JL et al. Prevention of symptomatic recurrences of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients initially

tolerating antiarrhythmic therapy. A multicenter, double-blind, crossover study of flecainide and placebo with

transtelephonic monitoring. Flecainide Supraventricular Tachycardia Study Group. Circulation. 1989;80:1557.

Bolognesi R. The pharmacologic treatment of atrial fibrillation. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 1991;5:617.

Lafuente-Lafuente C et al. Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD005049.

Chimienti M et al. Safety of long-term flecainide and propafenone in the management of patients with

symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: report from the Flecainide and Propafenone Italian Study

Investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:60A.

Aliot E, Denjoy I. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of flecainide versus propafenone in hospital out-patients

with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation/flutter. The Flecainide AF French Study Group. Am J Cardiol.

1996;77:66A.

Singh BN. Current antiarrhythmic drugs: an overview of mechanisms of action and potential clinical utility. J

Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1999;10:283.

Kalus JS, Mauro VF. Dofetilide: a class III-specific antiarrhythmic agent. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:44.

Laughlin JC, Kowey PR. Dronedarone: a new treatment for atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol.

2008;19:1220.

Benditt DG et al. Maintenance of sinus rhythm with oral D,L-sotalol therapy in patients with symptomatic atrial

fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. D,L-Sotalol Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Study Group. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:270.

Lee SH et al. Comparisons of oral propafenone and sotalol as an initial treatment in patients with symptomatic

paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:905.

Roy D et al. Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation

Investigators. N EnglJ Med. 2000;342:913.

Gosselink AT et al. Low-dose amiodarone for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

or flutter. JAMA. 1992;267:3289.

Greenbaum RA et al. Conversion of atrial fibrillation and maintenance of sinus rhythm by dofetilide. The

EMERALD (European and Australian Multicenter Evaluative Research on Atrial Fibrillation Dofetilide) Study

[abstract]. Circulation. 1998;98(Suppl):I–633.

Singh S et al. Efficacy and safety of oral dofetilide in converting to and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with

chronic atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. The Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation Investigative Research on Dofetilide

(SAFIRE-D) Study. Circulation. 2000;102:2385.

Torp-Pedersen C et al. Dofetilide in patients with congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction. Danish

Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality on Dofetilide Study Group. N EnglJ Med. 1999;341:857.

Køber L et al. Effect of dofetilide in patients with recent myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction: a

randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356:2052.

Song JC, White CM. Dofetilide (Tikosyn). Conn Med. 2000;64:601.

Singh BN et al. Dronedarone for maintenance of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation or flutter. N Engl J Med.

100.

2007;357:987.

Hohnloser SH et al. Effect of dronedarone on cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med.

2009;360:668.

Køber L et al. Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure [published correction

appears in N EnglJ Med. 2010;363:1384]. N EnglJ Med. 2008;358:2678.

Connolly SJ et al. Dronedarone in high risk permanent atrial fibrillation. N EnglJ Med. 2011;365:2268–2276.

Le Heuzey JY et al. A short-term, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and

safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: the DIONYSOS study. J

Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010;21:597.

Betapace AF [product information]. Wayne, NJ: Berlex Laboratories; 2010.

Brass LM et al. Warfarin use among patients with atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 1997;28:2382.

Petersen P et al. Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic

complications in chronic atrial fibrillation. The Copenhagen AFASAK study. Lancet. 1989;1:175.

[No authors listed]. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial

fibrillation. The Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1990;

323:1505.

[No authors listed]. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators Study. Final results. Circulation.

1991;84:527.

[No authors listed]. Warfarin versus aspirin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: Stroke

Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation II Study. Lancet. 1994;343:687.

Patel MR et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N EnglJ Med. 2011;365:883–891.

Granger CB et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N EnglJ Med. 2011;365:981–992.

Giugliano RP et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093–

2104.

Talati R, White CM. Dabigitran: a new orally available anticoagulant for prevention of strokes and thrombosis in

patients with atrial fibrillation. Formulary. 2011;46:44.

Connolly SJ et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation [published correction appears in N

EnglJ Med. 2010;363:1877]. N EnglJ Med. 2009;361:1139.

Stangier J et al. Influence of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral dabigatran

etexilate: an open-label, parallel-group, single-centre study. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49:259–268.

Kalus JS. Pharmacologic interventions for reversing the effects of oral anticoagulants. Am J Health Syst Pharm.

2013;70(Suppl 1):S12–S21.

Eikelboom JW et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med.

2013;369:1206–1214.

Morillo CA et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drugs as first line treatment of paroxysmal atrial

fibrillation (RAAFT-2). A randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:692–699.

Zipes DP. Specific arrhythmias: diagnosis and treatment. In: Braunwald E, ed. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: A

Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. Vol 1. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997:640.

Sager PT, Bhandari AK. Narrow complex tachycardias. Differential diagnosis and management. Cardiol Clin.

1991;9:619.

Faulds D et al. Adenosine. An evaluation of its use in cardiac diagnostic procedures, and in the treatment of

paroxysmalsupraventricular tachycardia. Drugs. 1991;41:596.

Garratt C et al. Comparison of adenosine and verapamil for termination of paroxysmal junctional tachycardia. Am

J Cardiol. 1989;64:1310.