Trial reportEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone and amiodarone for preventing recurrence after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: an open-label randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe high recurrence rate after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a challenge. Short-term antiarrhythmic drugs are commonly used during the 3-month blanking period, but the choice between amiodarone and dronedarone is unclear.
objectivesThis trial directly compared the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone vs. amiodarone administered during the blanking period post-ablation in AF. METHODS AND
resultsIn this open-label, randomized controlled trial, 280 patients undergoing AF ablation were assigned to receive 12 weeks of treatment with either dronedarone or amiodarone, which was discontinued upon completion of this treatment phase as per protocol. The primary endpoint was atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence (>30 s) after the blanking period. A total of 280 participants were enrolled, of whom 273 were included in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. In the mITT analysis, recurrence rates were not significantly different between the dronedarone and amiodarone groups (23.4% vs. 16.9%, P = 0.184). Secondary efficacy endpoints also showed no significant differences. However, the dronedarone group had a significantly lower incidence of side effects (40.9% vs. 64.0%, P < 0.001), primarily due to fewer cases of QTc-interval prolongation (5.8% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.01) and hypothyroidism (8.8% vs. 26.5%, P < 0.001). The intention-to-treat analysis, which included all enrolled participants, yielded results consistent with those of the mITT analysis.
conclusionTherapy with dronedarone during the blanking period after AF ablation was associated with a similar recurrence rate but a superior safety profile compared to 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.