[Basic therapy of chronic heart failure with digitalis or diuretics?]. Maintenance of sinus rhythm with oral d,l-sotalol therapy in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. d,l-Sotalol Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Study Group. Is digoxin really important in treatment of compensated heart failure? A placebo-controlled crossover study in patients with sinus rhythm. Cytokine profile in paranasal effusions in patients with chronic sinusitis using the YAMIK sinus catheter with and without betamethasone. Efficacy and safety of cefdinir in the treatment of maxillary sinusitis. [Effects of amiodarone versus sotalol in treatment of atrial fibrillation: a random controlled clinical study]. Long-term maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with current symptomatic atrial fibrillation: amiodarone vs propafenone, both in low doses. Maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation; sotalol vs bisoprolol. Efficacy of azimilide for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the presence and absence of structural heart disease. Disopyramide in the maintenance of sinus rhythm after electroconversion of atrial fibrillation. A placebo-controlled one-year follow-up study.
Sixteen patients in heart failure and sinus rhythm were, after a four-week treatment-free period, randomly assigned to receive, for four to six weeks, either a diuretic combination (hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene) or a digitalis glycoside. Subsequently the treatment was exchanged between the two groups. Without treatment nine patients were in stage II (New York Heart Association classification), seven in stage III. Pulmonary wedge pressure at rest was 27 +/- 14, on exercise 32 +/- 8 mm Hg, cardiac output 5.3 +/- 1.0 at rest and 7.8 +/- 2.3 l/min on exercise. Digitalis glycosides improved symptoms by one stage in three of 16 patients. All objective measures showed slight but not significant improvement. Diuretic treatment improved symptoms in five patients, while heart size and echocardiographically measured ventricular volume decreased slightly. Cardiac output decreased at rest, but not significantly, and on exercise not at all. Pulmonary arterial pressure (21 +/- 9 mm Hg), pulmonary wedge pressure (13 +/- 7 mm Hg) and pulmonary artery pressure on exercise (39 +/- 11 mm Hg) were significantly lower on diuretics than without treatment. The results support the primary use of diuretics in the treatment of chronic heart failure. Currently d,l-sotalol is widely used to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter, although a randomized dose-response study has not previously been conducted to guide therapy for this indication. This study summarizes findings of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy, safety, and dose-response relation of 3 fixed doses of d,l-sotalol (80, 120, and 160 mg twice daily) for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in 253 patients with atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter. All patients were in sinus rhythm at randomization. Treatment (69 patients on placebo, 59 on 80 mg, 63 on 120 mg, and 62 on 160 mg given twice daily) was continued for 12 months or until documented recurrence of symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring was used to detect symptomatic recurrences. Demographic characteristics were not different in the 4 groups. Structural heart disease was present in 57% of patients. Patients with a history of heart failure were excluded. The time from randomization to symptomatic arrhythmia recurrence was significantly longer in the 2 higher d,l-sotalol dose groups than in the placebo group. The median times to recurrence were 27, 106, 229, and 175 days for the placebo, 80, 120, and 160 mg groups, respectively. There were no deaths or cases of torsade de pointes, sustained ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation reported. Thus, d,l-sotalol appeared to be both safe and effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Further, the 120-mg twice daily dose appeared to provide the most favorable benefit and/or risk. To assess the efficacy of digitalis in patients with chronic clinically compensated congestive heart failure and normal sinus rhythm, we performed a double-blind crossover study with digoxin and placebo in 30 consecutive outpatients fulfilling these criteria; serum digoxin levels, clinical symptoms and signs, and objective indexes of cardiac function were monitored. No patient's clinical condition deteriorated during three months of placebo administration. Discontinuation of digoxin resulted in a small increase in echocardiographically determined resting left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (1.8 +/- 0.6 mm, p less than 0.001) and a similar decrease in velocity of circumferential fiber shortening (-0.08 +/- 0.04 circ/sec, p less than 0.05) from the corresponding values of 55.8 +/- 2.3 mm and 0.90 +/- 0.08 circ/sec during digitalis therapy. Resting left ventricular ejection time and pre-ejection period were prolonged by digoxin withdrawal. Maximal exercise capacity was unchanged. No clinical exacerbation of heart failure attributable to digitalis withdrawal occurred over a follow-up period averaging 19 months. The results indicate that long-term digoxin therapy has only a minor effect on cardiac performance that is without apparent clinical importance in a representative population of ambulatory patients treated with cardiac glycosides. Recently, the YAMIK sinus catheter (YAMIK) has been reported to be a useful therapeutic device in the treatment of sinusitis. The present study was conducted to compare its delivery of either a normal saline (NS) or a betamethasone solution (0.4 mg/ml) into the paranasal sinuses of 25 patients (39 sides) with chronic sinusitis. The following parameters were evaluated: (1) subjective nasal clinical symptoms (nasal discharge, nasal obstruction, postnasal drip and headache), (2) X-ray photographs (ethmoid and maxillary sinuses) and (3) cytokine levels (IL-1beta, IL-8 and TNF-alpha) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The total nasal symptom scores significantly decreased after the first therapy, and the total X-ray photograph scores significantly decreased after therapy with either NS or the betamethasone solution. In both NS and betamethasone patients, the levels of IL-1beta and IL-8 had significantly decreased by the 3rd and 2nd weeks after therapy, respectively. In contrast, the TNF-alpha level decreased after the first therapy with betamethasone solution and remained unchanged after therapy with NS. These findings suggest that evacuation of the pathological effusions in sinuses may exert a beneficial effect by reducing the levels of IL-1beta and IL-8, and we speculate that removal of pathological effusions from the sinuses may provide treatment through different mechanisms than those that occur in treatment with betamethasone. Cefdinir is a new, extended-spectrum, orally active, third-generation cephalosporin that is resistant to bacterial beta-lactamase production. To evaluate efficacy and safety of the antibiotic in maxillary sinusitis, its use was compared with amoxicillin/clavulanate (amox/clav), which is a well-accepted beta-lactamase-resistant antibiotic. In this investigator-blinded multicenter phase III clinical study, 569 patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment regimens: one daily dose of cefdinir 600 mg (OD), cefdinir 300 mg every 12 h (BD), and amox/clav 500/125 mg every 8 h. All antibiotics were administered orally for 10 days. Maxillary sinusitis was documented by typical clinical signs and symptoms and was confirmed by X-ray imaging. Before treatment, the genus and species of any pathogens were determined from sinus aspirates. Cultures were tested for beta-lactmase production and in vitro resistance to cefdinir and amox/clav. The effectiveness of antibiotic treatment was evaluated 7-14 days after therapy and whether or not recurrent clinical symptoms or persistent infection was determined 21-35 days post-therapy. The appearance of any adverse events was classified as associated or not associated with the medication of the study. Present findings showed that the in vitro susceptibility of pathogens to cefdinir and amox/clav was similar. Cefdinir OD or BD was therapeutically as effective as or better than amox/clav, although cefdinir BD was not as useful as amox/clav clinically. Cefdinir OD and BD and amox/clav were well tolerated. The statistical incidence of adverse events was the same among the three treatment groups, although cefdinir OD treatment had significantly fewer treatment discontinuations due to adverse events than BD and amox/clav. To evaluate the effects and adverse reactions of amiodarone and sotalol in treatment of atrial fibrillation.
                One hundred and two patients with atrial fibrillation, 56 males and 46 females, aged 56 +/- 11, were randomized into 2 equal groups: amiodarone group, taking amiodarone 600 mg/d for 7 days, 400 mg/d for 7 days, 200 mg/d for 7 days, and then 200 mg/d as maintenance dosage if conversion to sinus rhythm occurred; and sotalol group, taking sotalol 40-80 mg/d for one week, 160 mg/d for 2 weeks and then 40-80 mg/d as maintenance dosage if conversion to sinus rhythm occurred. If the cardiac rhythm failed to be converted to sinus rhythm after three week the medication was stopped. All the patients were followed up for 12-24 months and therapeutic effects were evaluated by echocardiography, electrocardiogram and Holter monitor.
                (1) Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 40 patients in the amiodarone group with an effective rate of 78.4%, and in 36 patients in the sotalol group with an effective rate of 70.6%. (2) Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in the first week in 34 patients of the amiodarone group and in 10 patients of the sotalol group. (3) 67.5% of the patients with conversion to sinus rhythm in the amiodarone group and 41.7% of the patients with conversion to sinus rhythm in the sotalol group maintained sinus rhythm in the following 12 months; and 44.4% patients with conversion to sinus rhythm in the amiodarone group and 26.7% of the patients with conversion to sinus rhythm in the following 24 months. (4) 10 patients in the sotalol group taking a maintenance dosage of 80 mg/d showed atrial ventricular block and severe bradycardia during the follow-up of 6-2 months, then the medication was stopped, but there was no severe arrhythmia in amiodarone group. (5) It was difficult to maintain sinus rhythm when atrial fibrillation lasting longer than 12 months was a predictive factor of failure to maintain sinus rhythm.
                There is no significant difference between amiodarone and sotalol in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. However, amiodarone is more effective in maintenance of sinus rhythm than sotalol. The adverse reaction of amiodarone on heart is less severe than that of sotalol. To compare the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and propafenone when used for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with refractory AF.
                Prospective, randomized, single-blind trial.
                Tertiary cardiac referral center.
                One hundred forty-six consecutive patients (72 men; mean age, 63 +/- 10 years [+/- SD]) with recurrent symptomatic AF.
                We studied 146 patients after restoration of sinus rhythm; patients were randomized to amiodarone, 200 mg/d, or propafenone, 450 mg/d. Follow-up clinical evaluations were conducted at the first, second, fourth, and sixth months, and at 3-month intervals thereafter. The proportion of patients relapsing to AF and/or experiencing side effects was calculated for each group using the Kaplan-Meier method. End point of the study was recurrence of AF or occurrence of side effects necessitating discontinuation of medication. Measurements and results: Of 146 patients, 72 received amiodarone and 74 received propafenone. The two groups were clinically similar. Of the 72 patients receiving amiodarone, AF developed in 25 patients, after an average of 9.8 months, compared to 33 of the 74 patients receiving propafenone after an average of 3.8 months. Twelve patients receiving amiodarone and 2 patients receiving propafenone had side effects necessitating withdrawal of medication while still in sinus rhythm.
                Amiodarone tends to be more effective than propafenone in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with AF, but this advantage is offset by a higher incidence of side effects. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of sotalol and bisoprolol in the maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.
                Patients (n=128) were randomized to sotalol (80 mg b.i.d.) or bisoprolol (5 mg x day(-1)). Patients with contraindications to beta-blockers, class III antiarrhythmic drugs or prior treatment with use of study medication for prevention of atrial fibrillation were excluded. Follow-up clinical evaluation was performed 1 day and 1 month after cardioversion and thereafter at 3-month intervals.
                There were no group differences in baseline clinical characteristics. After a follow-up of 12 months, 59% of all patients were still in sinus rhythm. The fraction remaining in sinus rhythm was calculated for the two groups by Kaplan--Meier analysis. During follow-up, 41% of patients on sotalol and 42% on bisoprolol developed atrial fibrillation (ns). In two patients (3.1%) on sotalol, life-threatening proarrhythmias (torsade de pointes tachycardias) occurred, whereas none were found in the bisoprolol group. Symptomatic bradycardias occurred in two patients on sotalol and three on bisoprolol.
                This study demonstrates that sotalol (160 mg x day(-1)) and bisoprolol (5 mg x day(-1)) are equally effective in maintaining sinus rhythm. Because of the side effects of sotalol, bisoprolol seems to be advantageous for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.
                Copyright 2001 The European Society of Cardiology. Azimilide hydrochloride (azimilide), an investigational antiarrhythmic drug, has shown variable efficacy in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to assess its efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal AF and heart disease. Patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF were screened for 1 month by transtelephonic monitoring. After recording 1 episode of AF in the screening period, they were randomized to receive azimilide 125 mg or placebo once daily. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease (CHF/CHD). A maximum of 220 patients without CHF/CHD were randomized, with the remainder having CHF/CHD. Patients with CHF/CHD were monitored for 3 days during loading. The primary efficacy analysis was the time to the first symptomatic recurrence of AF in the CHF/CHD group. Secondary analyses were the time to the first recurrence in the entire population and the time to the first recurrence in those with significant structural heart disease. The median time to recurrence of AF in the CHF/CHD group was 10 days in the 2 treatment arms. Nonsignificant trends were seen toward efficacy of azimilide in the CHF/CHD group (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.70, p=0.087), structural heart disease group (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.56, p=0.11), and overall group (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.49, p=0.053). No patient died. In conclusion, azimilide showed a nonsignificant trend toward efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with AF. In this multicentre study, 90 patients who left hospital in sinus rhythm after electroconversion of atrial fibrillation were randomized to double-blind treatment with either disopyramide (n = 44) or placebo (n = 46). The groups were comparable regarding age and sex distribution, duration of atrial fibrillation, heart volume and NYHA-classification. Life-table analysis was used to estimate the percentage of patients still in sinus rhythm and tolerating treatment at control visits after 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. After 1 month there was already a significant difference (P less than 0.01) between the two groups (disopyramide 70%, placebo 39%), a difference that was still remaining after 12 months (disopyramide 54%, placebo 30%). Twenty-four patients, all relapsing to atrial fibrillation before six months on placebo, were converted to sinus rhythm once again. They were then treated with disopyramide in an open manner and after 12 months 37% were still in sinus rhythm. From the results of this study, disopyramide seems to be a useful drug in maintaining sinus rhythm after electroconversion of atrial fibrillation.
The literature indicates that digitalis may have a useful role in the treatment of patients with HF who are in normal sinus rhythm. New trials are needed to elucidate the importance of digitalis dosage, and its usefulness in the era of beta-blockers and other agents shown to be effective in treating HF.