Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone compared with other commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences.
Methods and results: An international observational cohort study in Germany, Spain, Italy, and the USA enrolling patients with AF receiving AAD therapy. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class IV heart failure were excluded. Participants were followed for up to 18 months, regardless of discontinuation or subsequent AAD switches. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was captured by hospitalization, emergency room visit, or electrocardiogram-based documentation of AF. Confounding bias was controlled for in the analysis of AF recurrence using multivariate models of 19 variables for adjustment. A total of 1009 participants [mean age 67.2 (10.8) years, male to female ratio 1.3] were recruited from 170 centres, 693 (69%) of which were from across Europe and the remaining 316 (31%) from the USA. At the time of enrolment, participants were taking dronedarone (51%) or other AADs (49%) [flecainide or propafenone (42%), sotalol (11%), and amiodarone (47%)]. No significant differences in the risk of first confirmed AF recurrence with dronedarone vs. other AADs [crude hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.85-1.42); adjusted HR 1.16 (0.87-1.55)] were found, irrespective of whether univariate or multivariate models were used. Reported safety events were in accordance with the known safety profile of dronedarone.
Conclusion: In this population of patients from either Europe or the USA receiving dronedarone or another AAD, the effectiveness of dronedarone was comparable to that observed for other AADs in preventing first AF recurrence.
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Cardiovascular; Cohort; Dronedarone; Effectiveness; Safety.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.