Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness and safety of vernakalant, flecainide, and amiodarone for atrial fibrillation cardioversion: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVernakalant is approved in Europe, Canada, and several Asian countries for the pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), but remains unauthorized in the United States due to FDA safety concerns. Its role in emergency department (ED) management of AF requires further comparative evaluation against other agents.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study including all AF episodes treated with intravenous (iv) vernakalant, flecainide, or amiodarone in a single ED between January 2012 and December 2022. Clinical data were extracted from patient records. The primary outcome was sinus rhythm (SR) conversion during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included time to SR, ED length of stay, AF recurrence, ED revisits, and rehospitalizations within 6 months, as well as adverse events (AEs) occurring during drug infusion or during the ED stay. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for baseline confounding. Subgroup analyses explored the impact of demographic and clinical variables on treatment response and safety.
resultsWe analyzed 899 AF episodes (vernakalant: 262; flecainide: 151; amiodarone: 486). SR conversion rates were 76.7% (vernakalant), 69.5% (flecainide), and 67.3% (amiodarone). Median time to SR was significantly shorter with vernakalant (0.25 h), compared to flecainide (2.58 h) and amiodarone (8 h; p < 0.001). Vernakalant was associated with shorter ED stays. During follow-up, ED revisits and rehospitalizations occurred less frequently in vernakalant-treated patients than in amiodarone-treated patients, although these findings should be interpreted cautiously given baseline differences between groups. AEs occurred in 15.3% (vernakalant), 16.6% (flecainide), and 12.6% (amiodarone); flecainide showed a higher incidence of AEs of special interest. In patients with NYHA class I-II heart failure, vernakalant showed increased efficacy but also higher AE rates.
conclusionsVernakalant showed comparable overall efficacy to amiodarone and flecainide for cardioversion of recent-onset AF, with faster SR conversion and shorter ED stays. However, given the retrospective design, non-random treatment allocation, and baseline differences between groups, these comparative findings should be interpreted with caution. Vernakalant may be a useful option in selected patients when rapid cardioversion is desired.
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.