Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Dronedarone Versus Amiodarone Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective observational study compared adverse events (AEs) and health care resource use among patients with atrial fibrillation treated with dronedarone versus amiodarone.
methodsAdults with atrial fibrillation who initiated dronedarone or amiodarone between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2021 were propensity score matched in Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Outcomes included AEs (described in the dronedarone/amiodarone Food and Drug Administration labels and reported in the Food and Drug Administration AE Reporting System) and all-cause and cardiovascular-related health care resource use. Generalized linear models with Poisson distribution were used to compare the risk of AEs between the 2 cohorts. After matching, 12 210 dronedarone-treated patients were paired 1:1 with amiodarone-treated patients. For each AE, patients who experienced the AE during baseline were excluded.
resultsDuring follow-up, lower event rates of AEs were observed with dronedarone versus amiodarone; the rate ratio for any cardiac and vascular AE was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72), any respiratory AE was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63-0.66), and any gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary AE was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84). Compared with amiodarone-treated patients, dronedarone-treated patients experienced lower event rates of all-cause hospitalization (0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.71]) and all-cause outpatient visits (0.87 [95% CI, 0.87-0.87]). Although the incidence of cardiovascular-related hospitalization was higher with dronedarone versus amiodarone, event rates were not statistically different. Cardiovascular-related outpatient visits were significantly reduced with dronedarone versus amiodarone with an event rate of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96).
conclusionsIn this study, lower event/incidence rates of AEs and health care resource use were observed in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with dronedarone versus amiodarone.
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.