Tips from Other Journals

Amiodarone or Sotalol for Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 1998 Sep 1;58(3):766-770.

Class III antiarrhythmic agents have been reported to be useful in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation or with chronic atrial fibrillation recently cardioverted to sinus rhythm. Kochiadakis and associates conducted a randomized, double-blind study to compare the safety and efficacy of amiodarone and sotalol, two class III antiarrhythmic drugs, in the treatment of patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

Seventy patients who were admitted to the emergency department with symptomatic chronic or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were acute myocardial infarction occurring less than one week before entry into the trial, significant comorbidities such as decreased ejection fraction, unstable hepatic or renal function or hyperthyroidism. Patients who had a life expectancy of less than one year due to to a major medical problem were also excluded from the study.

After restoration of sinus rhythm, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either amiodarone or sotalol. Amiodarone was initiated with a loading dose of 800 to 1,600 mg per day for seven to 14 days orally and then tapered to a maintenance dosage of 200 mg per day. Patients randomized to sotalol began therapy with 80 mg twice daily; this dosage was titrated up to a maximum dosage of 360 mg twice daily. If adverse effects were noted by the patient or if the rate-corrected QT interval was more than 0.5 seconds, the maintenance dosage of sotalol was lowered accordingly.

The success rate was high for both drugs. Other studies have shown that just 25 percent of patients who converted to sinus rhythm remain so after one year without antiarrhythmic therapy. At one year follow-up in this study, 71 percent of the patients who received amiodarone were still in sinus rhythm, compared with 40 percent of those who received sotalol. Results were not affected by age, sex, left atrial size, fibrillation pattern or underlying cardiac disease.

The authors conclude that amiodarone and sotalol are equally safe when administered over a one-year period. Amiodarone appears to be more effective than sotalol in preventing the recurrence of symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Few patients discontinued therapy with either drug because of adverse effects, although further studies using greater numbers of patients and longer follow-up periods are recommended.

Kochiadakis GE, et al. Low-dose amiodarone versus sotalol for suppression of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. April 15, 1998;81:995–8.



Copyright © 1998 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

Navigate this Article