ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2017
Efficacy and safety in pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a propensity score matching to compare amiodarone vs class IC antiarrhythmic drugs.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Efficacy of Antiarrhythmics in the Pharmacological Cardioversion of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2023Pooled it
- Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2023Trial
- 2025 Thai guideline for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2025Article
- Pharmacological Cardioversion in Patients with Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease Subanalysis of the CANT II Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The acute management of recent-onset (<48 h) atrial fibrillation (AF) is still debated. Aim of our study was to compare efficacy and safety of intravenously administered class IC antidysrhythmic agents vs amiodarone in a propensity score matched series of patients acutely treated for AF in the emergency department. During a 3-year period, we retrospectively evaluated all episodes of recent-onset (<48 h) AF pharmacologically treated for sinus rhythm restoration in the emergency department. By means of a propensity score matching considering the main statistically different covariates, we selected two accurately matched treatment groups. We analysed the differences between amiodarone and class IC group in terms of efficacy and safety that is conversion to sinus rhythm rates within 12 and 48 h after starting treatment, time to conversion, and adverse drug effects. An overall number of 817 episodes of recent-onset AF were collected (amiodarone group = 406, class IC group = 411). After matching, we obtained 358 episodes equally divided (amiodarone group = 179 and class IC group = 179). Conversion rates within 12 h were 139 (53.1 %) in amiodarone group and 95 (72.6 %) in class IC group (p < 0.05). Median time for cardioversion was 420 min (331.6-508.3 CI 95 %) in amiodarone and 55 min (44.9-65.1 CI 95 %) in class IC group (p < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events in both groups was very low and equally distributed (p = ns). Intravenously administration of class IC agents, when compared with amiodarone, proved to be more rapid and effective, and equally safe in the acute management of recent-onset AF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.