Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this multicenter trial involving patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who had not previously received rhythm-control treatment, cryoballoon ablation resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients with treatment success at 1 year than antiarrhythmic drug therapy, with a low incidence of procedure-related adverse events.

Initial treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with cryoballoon ablation was associated with a lower incidence of persistent atrial fibrillation and other atrial tachyarrhythmias over 3 years than rhythm-control medications.

Patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, untreated atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to antiarrhythmic drug therapy or cryoablation. At 1 year, there was a significantly lower rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation with cryoablation than with drug therapy.

In this multicenter, randomized trial comparing early rhythm control with usual care in patients with early atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular conditions, early rhythm control reduced the rate of death from cardiovascular causes and cardiovascular complications and did not affect the number of nights in the hospital.

Patients with ventricular tachycardia and ischemic cardiomyopathy are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Catheter ablation is commonly used when antiarrhythmic drugs do not suppress ventricular tachycardia. Whether catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia is uncertain. In an international trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with previous myocardial infarction and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia (defined as ventricular tachycardia storm, receipt of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] shock or antitachycardia pacing, or sustained ventricular tachycardia terminated by emergency treatment) to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy or to undergo catheter ablation. All the patients had an ICD. Catheter ablation was performed within 14 days after randomization; sotalol or amiodarone was administered as antiarrhythmic drug therapy according to prespecified criteria. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention. A total of 416 patients were followed for a median of 4.3 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 103 of 203 patients (50.7%) assigned to catheter ablation and in 129 of 213 (60.6%) assigned to drug therapy (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Among patients in the catheter ablation group, adverse events within 30 days after the procedure included death in 2 patients (1.0%) and nonfatal adverse events in 23 patients (11.3%). Among the patients assigned to drug therapy, adverse events that were attributed to antiarrhythmic drug treatment included death from pulmonary toxic effects in 1 patient (0.5%) and nonfatal adverse events in 46 patients (21.6%). Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia, an initial strategy of catheter ablation led to a lower risk of a composite primary end-point event than antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02830360.).

Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and additional cardiac risk factors were randomly assigned to receive either dronedarone or placebo. At a median of 3.5 months, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was significantly increased with dronedarone. Dronedarone is a new antiarrhythmic agent that is used to restore sinus rhythm and to reduce rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in patients with intermittent (paroxysmal or persistent) atrial fibrillation. 1 In ATHENA (A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Parallel Arm Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Dronedarone 400 mg bid for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Hospitalization or Death from any Cause in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation/Atrial Flutter; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00174785), 4628 patients with intermittent atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to receive either dronedarone or placebo. Dronedarone reduced the incidence of the primary outcome of unplanned hospitalization for cardiovascular causes or death. Significant . . .

In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator who had ventricular tachycardia, catheter ablation was associated with a lower rate of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or ICD shock at 28 months than an escalation in antiarrhythmic drugs. Ventricular tachycardia caused by the scarring that occurs after myocardial infarction carries a substantial risk of death, a risk that is significantly reduced by the placement of an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD). 1 ICDs are implanted in more than 100,000 patients annually in the United States. Of these patients, 15% are initially treated with concomitant antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, 2 and up to 38% receive an appropriate shock for ventricular arrhythmia within 5 years. 3 ICDs effectively terminate ventricular tachycardia, but recurrent arrhythmias and ICD shocks may cause impairment in the quality of life, 4 are associated with an increased risk of death, heart failure, . . .

Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were initially recommended as oral anti-diabetic drugs to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D), by inhibiting SGLT2 in proximal tubule and reduce renal reabsorption of sodium and glucose. While many clinical trials demonstrated the tremendous potential of SGLT2i for cardiovascular diseases. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline first emphasized that SGLT2i were the only drug class that can cover the entire management of heart failure (HF) from prevention to treatment. Subsequently, the antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2i have also attracted attention. Although there are currently no prospective studies specifically on the anti-arrhythmic effects of SGLT2i. We provide clues from clinical and fundamental researches to identify its antiarrhythmic effects, reviewing the evidences and mechanism for the SGLT2i antiarrhythmic effects and establishing a novel paradigm involving intracellular sodium, metabolism and autophagy to investigate the potential mechanisms of SGLT2i in mitigating arrhythmias. Graphical abstract

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a major and increasing burden on health services. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digoxin versus beta-blockers for heart rate control in patients with permanent AF and symptoms of heart failure.MethodsRAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) was a randomised, open-label, blinded, endpoint trial embedded in the UK National Health Service (NHS) to directly compare low-dose digoxin with beta-blockers (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02391337). A trial-based cost-utility analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective over 12 months. Resource use in primary and secondary healthcare services, medications and patient-reported quality of life were prospectively collected to estimate differences in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsRATE-AF randomised 160 patients with mean age of 76 (SD 8) years and 46% women, of which 149 patients (n=73 digoxin, n=76 beta blockers) had complete data and survived to 12-month follow-up. Treatment with digoxin was significantly less costly, with a mean saving of £530.41 per patient per year (95% CI −£848.06 to −£249.38, p=0.001). This was principally due to substantially lower rates of adverse events, with less primary and secondary healthcare utilisation compared with beta-blocker therapy. There was no significant difference in QALYs (0.013; 95% CI −0.033 to 0.052, p=0.56). At the £20 000 per-QALY willingness to pay threshold, the probability of digoxin being cost-effective compared with beta-blockers was 94%, with potential annual savings to the NHS of £102 million/year (95% CI £48 million to £164 million saving, p=0.001).ConclusionsDigoxin is a less costly option when compared with beta-blockers for control of heart rate in suitable patients with permanent AF, with larger cost-effectiveness studies warranted to advise on national and global policy-making.Trial registration number NCT02391337, EudraCT 2015-005043-13.

In this trial, patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest received amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. There were no significant between-group differences in survival to hospital discharge. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is responsible for more than 300,000 deaths each year in North America. 1 Many out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are attributable to ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Although ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia is regarded as the most treatable presentation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest because of its responsiveness to shock, 2 most defibrillation attempts do not result in sustained return of spontaneous circulation. 3 Ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia commonly persists or recurs after shock, and there is a significant inverse relationship between the duration of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, or the frequency of acute recurrences, and . . .