atrial fibrillation clinical trials results

amiodarone versus class I drugs
AFFIRM Substudy (amiodarone vs class I drugs), 2003
Amiodarone 200 mg/d ,
versus
class I drugs
patients with AF likely to be recurrent and to cause ilness or deathpj open
Follow-up duration: 12 months, and 3.8y
US, Canada
AFFIRM Substudy (sotalol vs class I drugs), 2003
Amiodarone 200 mg/d , , sotalol
versus
class I drugs
patients with AF likely to be recurrent and to cause ilness or deathpj open
Follow-up duration: 12 months, and 3.8y
amiodarone versus disopyramide
Villani, 1992
Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
disopyramide 500 mg/d
Symptomatic recent-onset AF lasting > 1 hour, being at least the second episodeopen
Follow-up duration: 14 months
amiodarone versus placebo
Channer, 2004
Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with Persistent AF double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
GEFACA, 2001
Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting > 2 monthsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 16 months
Kochiadakis (amiodarone vs placebo), 2000
Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
placebo
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AF single
Follow-up duration: 24 months
SAFE-T (amiodarone vs placebo), 2005
Amiodarone 300 mg/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting 3 days to 1 yeardouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
amiodarone versus propafenone
Kochiadakis a, 2004
Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
propafenone 450 mg/d
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AFsingle
Follow-up duration: 24 months
amiodarone versus quinidine
Vitolo, 1981
Amiodarone 400 mg/d
versus
Quinidine 1,2 g/d
Any persistent AFopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
amiodarone versus sotalol
AFFIRM Substudy (amiodarone vs sotalol), 2003
Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
Sotalol 240 mg/d
patients with AF likely to be recurrent and to cause ilness or deathpjopen
Follow-up duration: mean 3.8y
Kochiadakis (amiodarone vs sotalol), 2000
Amiodarone 200 mg/d , Amiodarone 200 mg/d
versus
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AF single
Follow-up duration: 24 months
SAFE-T (amiodarone vs sotalol), 2005
Amiodarone 300 mg/d , Amiodarone 300 mg/d
versus
Persistent AF lasting 3 days to 1 year double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
apixaban versus aspirin
AVERROES, 2011
NCT00496769
apixaban 5 mg (or 2.5 mg) twice daily
versus
aspirin 81-324 md daily
patients with atrial fibrillation who have failed or are unsuitable for vitamin K antagonist treatmentdouble blind
Follow-up duration: maximum 21 months
36 countries
apixaban versus warfarin standard dose
ARISTOTLE, 2011
NCT00412984
apixaban 5mg twice daily
versus
warfarin adjusted for an INR between 2 and 3
subjects with atrial fibrillation and risk factors for stroke double blind
Follow-up duration: 1.8 yrs (median)
39 countries
phase 2 apixaban, 0
NCT00787150
apixaban 5 or 2.5 mg twice daily
versus
warfarin
patient with non valvular AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 weeks
aprindine versus placebo
SMART, 2002
Aprindine 40 mg/d
versus
placebo
Symptomatic paroxysmal AF having > 1 episode monthly or persistent AF lasting < 1 monthdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
aspirin versus control
Japanese AF Trial, 2006
aspirin at 150 to 200 mg per day
versus
no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy
patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation
LASAF(aspirin vs no treatment), 1999
aspirin:125mg/day(group A1);125mg on alternate days(group A2)
versus
no control treatment(group C)
Open
aspirin versus coumadin low dose
PATAF (vs coumadin low dose), 1999
aspirin 300mg/d
versus
coumarin low dose(target INR 1.1-1.6 )
non rheumatic AF,recruited in general practice,with no established indication for anticoagulation.Simple aveugle
Follow-up duration: 2.7 years
Netherlands
aspirin versus coumadin standard dose
PATAF (vs coumadin standard dose), 1999
aspirin 150mg/d
versus
coumarin standard dose(target INR 2.5-3.5)
non rheumatic AF,recruited in general practice,with no established indication for anticoagulation.Simple aveugle
Follow-up duration: 2.7 years
Netherlands
aspirin versus placebo
EAFT, 1993
aspirin 300 mg/d
versus
placebo
Patient with non rheumatic AF and recent TIA or minor ischaemic stroke(secondary prevention).Double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.3 years
europe,israel
AFASAK (aspirin vs placebo), 1989
aspirin 75 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with chronic non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation Double aveugle
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Denmark
SPAF (aspirin , warfarin eligible arm), 1991
aspirin 325mg/d
versus
placebo
nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation,warfarin eligible patientsDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.3 years
USA
SPAF (aspirin,warfarin ineligible arm), 1991
aspirin 325mg/d
versus
placebo
nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, warfarin ineligible patientsDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.3 years
USA
aspirin versus placebo (on top fluidione)
FFAACS , 2001
fluidione standard dose (target INR: 2-2.6) + aspirin low dose 100 mg
versus
fluidione standard dose(target INR:2-2.6) + placebo
high risk patients with non valvular atrial fibrillationDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 0.84 y
France
aspirin versus warfarin low dose
AFASAK II (aspirin vs warfarin low dose), 1998
aspirin 300 mg/d
versus
warfarin low dose (1.25mg/d)
chronic non valvular atrial fibrillationOpen
Follow-up duration: 3.5 years
Denmark
aspirin versus warfarin standard dose
AFASAK (aspirin vs warfarin standard dose), 1989
aspirin (low dose 75 mg)
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2.8-4.2)
chronic non rheumatic AFOpen
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Denmark
AFASAK II (aspirin vs warfarin standard dose), 1998
aspirin 300 mg/d
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2-3)
chronic non valvular atrial fibrillationOpen
Follow-up duration: 3.5 years
Denmark
SPAF II (aspirin vs warfarin standard dose, age<75), 1994
aspirin 325 mg/d
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2.0-4.5)
non rheumatic atrial fibrillation,medium to high risk patients. Patients aged 75 and less.Open
Follow-up duration: 3.1 years
USA
SPAF II (aspirin vs warfarin standard dose, age>75), 1994
aspirin 325 mg/d
versus
warfarin standard dose (target INR 2.0-4.5)
Non rheumatic atrial fibrillation,medium to high risk patients.Patients aged more than 75.Open
Follow-up duration: 2.0 years
USA
aspirin + clopidogrel versus anticoagulant
ACTIVE W, 2006
NCT00243178
clopidogrel (75 mg per day) plus aspirin (75–100 mg per day)
versus
oral anticoagulation therapy (target international normalised ratio of 2·0–3·0)
Patients with atrial fibrillation plus one or more risk factor for strokeopen
Follow-up duration: 1.28 y (median)
aspirin + clopidogrel versus aspirin
ACTIVE A, 2009
NCT00249873
clopidogrel 75 mg daily + aspirin 75-100 mg daily
versus
aspirin 75-100 mg daily alone
Patients with AF and at least one risk factor for stroke and who are not candidates for warfarin therapydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.7 y
atorvastatin versus control
Ozaydin, 2006
atorvastatin 10 mg
versus
standard therapy
Persistent AF and scheduled ECopen
Follow-up duration: 3 months
atorvastatin versus placebo
MIRACL (AF ancillary study), 2001
atorvastatin 80mg daily
versus
placebo
Acute coronary syndrome; subgroup without history of AFdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 16 weeks
Chello, 2006
atorvastatin 20mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with scheduled coronary bypass surgerydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3 weeks
ARMYDA-3 (AF ancillary study), 2006
atorvastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with scheduled cardiac surgery without history of AF
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Almroth, 2009
atorvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing electrical cardioversion double blind
Sweden
MIRACL (sub-group) (Schwartz), 2004
atorvastatin 80 mg
versus
placebo
Acute coronary syndromedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 16 weeks
Dernellis, 2006
atorvastatin 20–40 mg
versus
placebo
Paroxysmal AF with CRP between 0.8 and 13 mg/LNA
Follow-up duration: 4–6 months
AZD0837 versus aspirin
phase 2 AZD0837, 0
NCT00623779
AZD0837
versus
aspirin
patients with atrial fibrillation, who are appropriate for but unable or unwilling to take Vitamin-K antagonist(VKA) therapyopen
AZD0837 versus warfarin standard dose
Lip (phase 2 AZD0837), 2009
NCT00684307
AZD0837 for 3-9 months
versus
dose-adjusted Vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) (aiming for an international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0 to 3.0)
patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more additional risk factors for strokedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 or 9 months
Azimilide versus placebo
ASAP, 2003
Azimilide various doses (35 to 125 mg/d) after pharmacological or electrical cardioversion
versus
placebo
patients with previous AF documented in the last 2 yearsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
bidisomide versus placebo
AFIB, 1997
Bidisomide various doses (400, 800, 1200 mg/d)
versus
placebo
patients with previous AF documented in the last 2 yearsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
candesartan versus placebo
CAPRAF (Tveit), 2007
NCT00130975
candesartan 8 mg once daily for 3-6 weeks before and candesartan 16 mg once daily for 6 months after electrical cardioversion
versus
placebo
patients undergoing electrical cardioversion for persistent AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
CHARM (AF ancillary study), 2005
candesartan
versus
placebo
Heart failure
Follow-up duration: 3.17 y
catheter ablation versus control
Forleo, 2009
pulmonary vein isolation
versus
antiarrhythmic drug treatment
patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and paroxysmal or persistent AFopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
A4 (Jais), 2008
NCT00540787
catheter ablation
versus
antiarrhythmic drugs
patients with paroxysmal AF resistant to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug.open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
France,Canada, USA
ThermoCool AF, 2008
NCT00116428
catheter ablation
versus
antiarrhythmic drug therapy with a class I or III drug
patients with AF who were nonresponsive to previous treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs open
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Oral, 2006
circumferential pulmonary-vein ablation and amiodarione
versus
amiodarone and two cardioversions during the first three months alone
patients with chronic atrial fibrillation open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy, USA
APAF (Pappone), 2006
left atrial catheter ablation
versus
Flecainide acetate, propafenone hydrochloride, or sotalol hydrochloride
Drug-refractory paroxysmal AF >=6moopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
CAFCOAF (Stabile), 2006
left atrial catheter ablation plus amiodarone or other drugs
versus
Amiodarone or other drugs
Drug-refractory or drug-intolerant paroxysmal or persistent AFopen blinded assessment
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
Lakkireddy, 2006

versus

USA
Wazni , 2005
Pulmonary vein isolation
versus
Flecainide, propafenone, or sotalol; amiodarone if needed
Drug-naive monthly symptomatic AF >=3moopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
USA, Italy,Germany
Krittayaphong, 2003
left atrial catheter ablation
versus
amiodarone
drug-refractory amiodarone-naive paroxysmal or persistent AF >=6moopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Thailand
coumadin low dose versus coumadin standard dose
PATAF (coumadin low dose vs coumadin standard dose), 1999
coumarin low dose(target INR 1.1-1.6)
versus
coumarin standard dose(target INR 2.5-3.5)
non rheumatic AF,recruited in general practice,with no established indication for anticoagulation.Simple aveugle
Follow-up duration: 2.7 years
Netherlands
dabigatran versus warfarin standard dose
phase 2 dabigatran, 0
NCT01136408
Dabigatran 110, 220, 300 mg twice daily
versus
warfarin
patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (paroxysmal, persistent or permanent)open
Japan
dabigatran 100mg versus warfarin
RE-LY 110mg (2nd prevention subgroup) , 2010
dabigatran 110mg daily
versus
warfarin
patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack open
Follow-up duration: 2 y
dabigatran 110mg versus warfarin standard dose
RE-LY (110mg), 2009
NCT00262600
dabigatran 110 mg twice a day
versus
warfarin adjusted dose to a 2-3 INR
Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation open (blind assessment)
Follow-up duration: 2 y (median)
44 countries
dabigatran 150mg versus warfarin
RE-LY 150mg (2nd prevention subgroup) ,
dabigatran 150mg daily
versus
warfarin
patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack open
Follow-up duration: 2 y
dabigatran 150mg versus warfarin standard dose
PETRO (150mg), 2007
dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (alone or combined with 81- or 325-mg aspirin)
versus
warfarin administered to achieve an international normalized ratio of 2 to 3 for
patients with AF at high risk for thromboembolic eventsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 weeks
Denmark, The netehrlands, Sweden, US
RE-LY (150mg), 2009
NCT00262600
dabigatran 150 mg twice a day
versus
warfarin adjusted-dose to a 2.0 to 3.0 INR
Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillationopen (blind assessment)
Follow-up duration: 2 y (median)
44 countries
disopyramide versus placebo
Karlson, 1998
Disopyramide 500 mg/d
versus
palcebo
Persistent AF between 6 weeks and 1 yearopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Lloyd (Disopyramide vs placebo), 1984
Disopyramide 450 mg/d ,
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting 1 month to 3 years double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
disopyramide versus propafenone
PRODIS, 1996
Disopyramide 750 mg/d
versus
propafenone 900 mg/d
Persistent AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
disopyramide versus quinidine
Lloyd (Disopyramide vs quinidine), 1984
Disopyramide 450 mg/d , ,
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting 1 month to 3 years double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
dofetilide versus placebo
DIAMOND, 2001
Dofetilide 500 mcg/d5
versus
placebo
Persistent AF in patients with heart failure or recent myocardial infarction and reduced LVEFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
SAFIRE-D, 2000
Dofetilide various doses (250, 500, 1000 mcg/d)
versus
placebo
Persistent AF or AFl lasting 2 weeks to 6 monthsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
dronedarone versus amiodarone
DIONISOS, 2007
NCT00489736
Dronedarone (400mg BID)
versus
Amiodarone (600mg daily for 28 days, then 200mg daily thereafter)
Patients with documented atrial fibrillation for more than 72 hours for whom cardioversion and antiarrhythmic treatment is indicated in the opinion of the investigator and under oral anticoagulation double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
dronedarone versus placebo
PALLAS, 2011
NCT01151137
Dronedarone
versus
placebo
patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and additional risk factorsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3 years
ADONIS, 2007
NCT00259376
dronedarone 400 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients with at least one episode of atrial fibrillation in the preceding 3 months, and in sinus rhythm for at least 1 hour before randomizationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Argentina
ATHENA, 2009
NCT00174785
dronedarone 400 mg twice a day
versus
placebo
patients (>70y) with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation and additional risk factors for deathdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 21.5 months
37 countries
DAFNE, 2003
Dronedarone various doses (800, 1200, 1600 mg/d)
versus
placebo
patients with Persistent AFdouble blind
ERATO, 2008
18760136
dronedarone 400 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients with permanent AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
EURIDIS, 2007
NCT00259428
dronedarone 400 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients with at least one episode of atrial fibrillation in the preceding 3 months, and in sinus rhythm for at least 1 hour before randomization double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
12 European countries
EURIDIS ADONIS (pooled analysis), 2009
Dronedarone 800 mg/d
versus
placebo
AF documented in the previous 3 monthsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Europe, US, canada, Australia, South A, Argentina
edoxaban versus warfarin standard dose
Weitz (edoxaban phase 2), 0
NCT00504556
Four Fixed Dose Regimens of edoxaban (DU-176b)
versus
warfarin
Subjects With Non- Valvular Atrial Fibrillationdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
USA, Europe, South and central america,
phase 2 edoxaban, 0
NCT00806624
edoxaban (DU-176b)
versus
warfarin
male and female subjects aged 18 to 80 years, inclusive, with non-valvular AF and a CHADS2 Score of at least 1double-blind
China
edoxaban high dose versus warfarin standard dose
ENGAGE-AF TIMI 48 High dose, 2013
NCT00781391
edoxaban 60mg once daily
versus
warfarin (INR 2-3)
AF patients (CHADS2 >=2) double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.8 years
46 countries
edoxaban low dose versus warfarin standard dose
ENGAGE-AF TIMI 48 Low dose, 2013
NCT00781391
edoxaban xxx once daily
versus
warfarin (INR 2-3)
AF patients (CHADS2 >=2) double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.8 years
46 countries
electrical cardioversion versus rate control
Hot cafe, 2004
Cardioverted using internal or external cardioversion and then given prophylactic anti-arrhythmic drugs
versus
rate control (beta-blockers, digitalis, calcium antagonists or atrioventricular node ablation/modification with or without pacemaker implantation
patients with persistent atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 1.7 y
RACE, 2002
Rhythm control: serial cardioversions and antiarrhythmic drugs and oral anticoagulantsio
versus
Rate control (rate slowing medication and anticoagulation
patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after a previous electrical cardioversionioopen
Follow-up duration: 2.3 y
STAF, 2003
Direct current cardioversion with drugs to maintain sinus rhythm
versus
rate control and anticoagulants (or antithrombotics)
patients with persistent atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 1.6 y
enalapril versus control
Ueng, 2003
enalapril
versus
control
atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 270 days (range 61-575d)
enalapril versus placebo
SOLVD (AF ancillary study), 2003
enalapril
versus
placebo
Heart failure
Follow-up duration: 2.9 y
flecainide versus digoxin
Steinbeck (flecainide vs digoxin), 1988
flecainide 200-300 mg/d (+ digoxine)
versus
Paroxysmal symptomatic AF of any duration open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
flecainide versus no treatment
Van Gelder, 1989
Flecainide 200-300 mg/d
versus
no treatment
Any persistent AF or AFl open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
flecainide versus placebo
Carunchio (flecainide vs placebo), 1995
Flecainide 200 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with recurrent AF with > 3 episodes in previous 1 year open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
flecainide versus propafenone
Aliot, 1996
Flecainide 100-200mg/d
versus
Propafenone 600 mg/d
patients with paroxysmal AF documented any time beforeopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
flecainide versus quinidine
Naccarelli, 1996
Flecainide 200-300 mg/d
versus
Quinidine 1-1,5 g/d
Any documented symptomatic AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
gemfibrozil versus placebo
VA HIT (AF ancillary study), 1999
gemfibrozil
versus
placebo
men with coronary heart disease, an HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) or less, and an LDL cholesterol level of 140 mg per deciliter (3.6 mmol per liter) or lessdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4.4 y
US
idraparinux versus warfarin standard dose
AMADEUS, 2008
NCT00070655
subcutaneous idraparinux 2·5 mg weekly
versus
adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonists (target of an international normalised ratio of 2–3)
patients with atrial fi brillation at risk for thromboembolismopen
Follow-up duration: 10.7 months
Indobufen versus warfarin
SIFA, 1997
NCT00244426
indobufen 200 mg (the dose was lowered to 100 mg if impaired renal function:cc<80 ml/mn)
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2.0-3.5)
non rhumatismal AF and recent cerebral ischemic episode(< or =15 days) Open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
irbesartan versus control
Madrid, 2002
irbesartan
versus
control
atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 254 d (range 60-710)
irbesartan versus placebo
ACTIVE I, 2009
NCT00249795
irbesartan 300mg once daily
versus
placebo
patients with atrial fibrillation and with a systolic blood pressure of at least 110 mmHg associated with at least one major risk of vascular events double blind
Follow-up duration: 4.1 years
lenient rate control versus strict rate control
RACE II, 2010
NCT00392613
lenient rate control (target resting HR <110 bpm)
versus
strict rate control(target resting HR <80 bpm, and <110 bpm with moderate exercise)
patients with permanent atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 3 y
the Netherlands
lisinopril versus placebo
Van den Burg, 1995
lisinopril
versus
placebo
atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failuredouble blind
Follow-up duration: 84 days
GISSI-3 (AF ancillary study), 2003
lisinopril
versus
placebo
Post–myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 0.5 y
losartan versus atenolol
LIFE (AF ancillary study), 2005
losartan
versus
atenolol
hypertension
Follow-up duration: 4.8 y
metoprolol versus placebo
Kuhlkamp, 2000
Metoprolol 100 mg/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting 2 days to 1 yeardouble blnd
Follow-up duration: 6 months
n-3 PUFA versus placebo
P-OM3 (Kowey), 2010
omega-3 PUFA capsules at 8 g/day for the first seven days followed by 4 g/day for total of 24 weeks
versus
placebo
outpatients with documented symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF without significant structural heart disease and initially in sinus rhythmdouble-blind
oral anticoagulant versus placebo
EAFT, 1993
Oral anticoagulation standard dose(target INR 3.0 (2.5-4.0)) the choice of anticoagulant type was free but most physicians choose coumarin derivatives.
versus
placebo
Patient with non rheumatic AF and recent TIA or minor ischaemic stroke(secondary prevention).Open
Follow-up duration: 2.3 years
pharmacological cardioversion versus rate control
AFFIRM, 2002
NCT00000556
rhythm control - the antiarrhythmic drugs used included amiodarone, disopyramide, flecainide, moricizine, procainamide, propafenone, quinidine, sotalol, dofetilide or combinations chosen by the treating physician. cardioversion could be employed if necess
versus
necessaryrate control - beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, digoxin or combination of these drug.
patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation and who were at least 65 years of age or who had other risk factors for stroke or deathopen
Follow-up duration: mean 3.5y
PIAF, 2000
rhythm control - amiodarone (600mg for 3 weeks, 200mg maintenance) for pharmacological cardioversion followed if necessary by electrical cardioversion
versus
rate control - diltiazem90mg BD/TDS and additional therapy at the discretion of the treating physicianall patients were anticoagulated throughout the study period
patients with with chronic atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
AF-CHF, 2002
NCT00597077
maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control)
versus
control of the ventricular rate (rate control)
patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 37 months
pilsicainide versus placebo
Okishige, 2000
Pilsicainide 150 mg/d/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting > 6 monthssingle
pravastatin versus control
Tveit, 2004
pravastatin 40 mg
versus
standard therapy
AF >48 h and scheduled EC
Follow-up duration: 6 weeks
propafenone versus flecainide
FAPIS, 1996
propafenone 520 mg/dt
versus
Flecainide 200 mg/d
Paroxysmal recurrent AF with > 2 episodes in the last 4 monthsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
propafenone versus placebo
Bellandi (propafenone vs placebo), 2001
Propafenone 900 mg/d/d after pharmacological or electrical cardioversion
versus
placebo
patients with paroxysmal recurrent or persistent AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Dogan, 2004
Propafenone 450 mg/d
versus
placebo
AF of duration 3 hours to 3 months ???single
Follow-up duration: 15 months
Kochiadakis b (propafenone vs placebo), 2004
Propafenone 450 mg/d
versus
placebo
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AF single
Follow-up duration: 24 months
RAFT, 2003
Propafenone at various doses (450, 650, 850 mg/d)
versus
placebo.
Previous symptomatic AF documented in the last yeardouble blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Stroobandt, 1997
Propafenone 450 mg/d
versus
placebo
Recent-onset AF or persistent AF lasting > 2 weeksdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
propafenone versus quinidine
Richiardi, 1992
Propafenone 900 mg/d
versus
Quinidine 1 g/d mg/d
Paroxysmal AF having > 3 episodes in the last 3 monthsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
propafenone versus sotalol
Reimold, 1993
Propafenone 675 mg/d
versus
Sotalol 320 mg/d
Any symptomatic AF or AFlx-xbitmopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
quinidine versus digoxin
Steinbeck (quinidine vs digoxin), 1988
Quinidine 1 g/d (+ digoxine)
versus
digoxine alone
Paroxysmal symptomatic AF of any durationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
quinidine versus disopyramide
Lloyd (quinidine vs disopyramide), 1984
quinidine 1.4 g/d , quinidine 1.4 g/d
versus
Persistent AF lasting 1 month to 3 years double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
quinidine versus flecainide
Steinbeck (quinidine vs flecainide), 1988
Quinidine 1 g/d (+ digoxine) , Quinidine 1 g/d (+ digoxine)
versus
Paroxysmal symptomatic AF of any duration open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
quinidine versus no treatment
Hillestad, 1971

versus
Sodermark, 1975
Quinidine 1.2 - 1.8 g/d
versus
no treatment
Persistent AF or AFl lasting < 3 yearopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
quinidine versus placebo
Byrne Quinn, 1979
Quinidine 1.2 g/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AFdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Lloyd (quinidine vs placebo), 1984
quinidine 1.4 g/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting 1 month to 3 yearsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
PAFAC (quinidine vs placebo), 2004
Quinidine 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting > 7 daysildouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
SOPAT (quinidine vs placebo), 2004
Quinidine 0,320 or 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil)
versus
placebo
Paroxysmal AF documented in the last 1 month@4 double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
quinidine versus sotalol
Hohnloser, 1995
Quinidine 1 g/d
versus
sotalol 240-320 mg/dt
Persistent AF between 2 days and 6 monthsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Juul-Moller, 1990
Quinidine 1,2 g/d
versus
Sotalol 160-320 mg/dt
Persistent AF between 2 months and 1 yearopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Kalusche, 1994
Quinidine 1 g/d
versus
Sotalol 240-400 mg/dt
AF lasting from 2 weeks to 2 yearsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
PAFAC (quinidine vs sotalol), 2004
Quinidine 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil , Quinidine 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil
versus
Persistent AF lasting > 7 daysil double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
SOCESP, 1999
Quinidine 700 mg/d
versus
sotalol 240 mg/d
AF lasting < 6 monthsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
SOPAT (quinidine vs sotalol), 2004
Quinidine 0,320 or 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil) , Quinidine 0,320 or 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil)
versus
Paroxysmal AF documented in the last 1 month@4 double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
rate control versus electrical cardioversion
Hot cafe (rate vs rythm control), 2004
rate control (beta-blockers, digitalis, calcium antagonists or atrioventricular node ablation/modification with or without pacemaker implantation
versus
Cardioverted using internal or external cardioversion and then given prophylactic anti-arrhythmic drugs
patients with persistent atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 1.7 y
RACE (rate vs rythm control), 2002
Rate control (rate slowing medication and anticoagulation
versus
Rhythm control: serial cardioversions and antiarrhythmic drugs and oral anticoagulantsio
patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after a previous electrical cardioversionioopen
Follow-up duration: 2.3 y
STAF (rate vs rythm control), 2003
rate control and anticoagulants (or antithrombotics)
versus
Direct current cardioversion with drugs to maintain sinus rhythm
patients with persistent atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 1.6 y
rate control versus pharmacological cardioversion
AFFIRM (rate vs rythm control), 2002
NCT00000556
necessaryrate control - beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, digoxin or combination of these drug.
versus
rhythm control - the antiarrhythmic drugs used included amiodarone, disopyramide, flecainide, moricizine, procainamide, propafenone, quinidine, sotalol, dofetilide or combinations chosen by the treating physician. cardioversion could be employed if necess
patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation and who were at least 65 years of age or who had other risk factors for stroke or deathopen
Follow-up duration: mean 3.5y
PIAF (rate vs rythm control), 2000
rate control - diltiazem90mg BD/TDS and additional therapy at the discretion of the treating physicianall patients were anticoagulated throughout the study period
versus
rhythm control - amiodarone (600mg for 3 weeks, 200mg maintenance) for pharmacological cardioversion followed if necessary by electrical cardioversion
patients with with chronic atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
AF-CHF (rate vs rythm control), 2002
NCT00597077
control of the ventricular rate (rate control)
versus
maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control)
patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillationopen
Follow-up duration: 37 months
rivaroxaban versus warfarin
ROCKET (2nd prevention subgroup) , 2011
rivaroxaban
versus
warfarin INR 2-3
patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attackdouble-blind
rivaroxaban versus warfarin standard dose
ROCKET-AF, 2010
NCT00403767
Rivaroxaban 20mg p.o. once daily
versus
Warfarin p.o. once daily titrated to a target INR of 2.5 (range 2.0 to 3.0, inclusive)
Subjects With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: median 1.94 y
45 countries
rosuvastatin versus placebo
GISSI HF (subgroup and ancillary study), 2009
NCT00336336
rosuvastatin 10mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with chronic heart failure who were not in AF at study entrydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.7y (median)
Italy
sotalol versus bisoprolol
Plewan, 2001
Sotalol 160 mg/d
versus
bisoprolol 5 mg/d
Persistent AFopen
Follow-up duration: 8 months
sotalol versus flecainide
Carunchio (sotalol vs flecianide), 1995
sotalol 240 mg/d , , sotalol 240 mg/d ,
versus
patients with recurrent AF with > 3 episodes in previous 1 year open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
sotalol versus placebo
Bellandi (sotalol vs placebo), 2001
sotalol 240 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with paroxysmal recurrent or persistent AF double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Benditt, 1999
Sotalol various doses (80, 120, 160 mg/d) after cardioversion
versus
placebo
patients with AF or AFl documented in the last 3 monthsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Carunchio (sotalol vs placebo), 1995
sotalol 240 mg/d ,
versus
placebo
patients with recurrent AF with > 3 episodes in previous 1 year open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Kochiadakis (sotalol vs placebo), 2000
sotalol 320 mg/d
versus
placebo
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AF single
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Kochiadakis b (sotalol vs placebo), 2004
sotalol 300 mg/d
versus
placebo
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AF single
Follow-up duration: 24 months
PAFAC (sotalol vs placebo), 2004
sotalol 320 mg/d ,
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting > 7 daysil double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
SAFE-T (sotalol vs placebo), 2005
sotalol 320 mg/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF lasting 3 days to 1 year double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Singh, 1991
Sotalol 80 - 320 mg/d
versus
placebo
Persistent AF or AFl lasting 2 weeks to 1 yeardouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
SOPAT (sotalol vs placebo), 2004
sotalol 320 mg/d ,
versus
placebo
Paroxysmal AF documented in the last 1 month@4 double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
sotalol versus propafenone
Kochiadakis b (sotalol vs propafenome), 2004
sotalol 300 mg/d , , sotalol 300 mg/d ,
versus
Any documented symptomatic previous or persistent AF single
Follow-up duration: 24 months
trandolapril versus placebo
TRACE (AF ancillary study), 1999
trandolapil
versus
placebo
Post–myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 2.4 y
triflusal versus coumadin standard dose
NASPEAF (triflusal vs coumadin standard dose)), 2004
Triflusal 600 mg/d
versus
coumadin standard dose(target INR 2-3)
Non valvular atrial fibrillation. Intermediate risk patients.Open
Follow-up duration: 2.76 years
Spain
triflusal+coumadin medium dose versus coumadin standard dose
NASPEAF (triflusal + coumadin medium dose vs coumadin standard dose), 2004
Triflusal 600 mg/d + coumadin medium dose (target INR 1.25-2)
versus
coumadin standard dose(target INR 2-3)
Non valvular atrial fibrillation. Intermediate risk patients.Open
Follow-up duration: 2.76 years
Spain
triflusal+coumadin medium dose versus triflusal
NASPEAF (triflusal+coumadin medium dose vs triflusal), 2004
Triflusal 600 mg/d + coumadin medium dose (target INR 1.25-2)
versus
Triflusal 600 mg/d
Non valvular atrial fibrillation. Intermediate risk patientsOpen
Follow-up duration: 2.76 years
Spain
valsartan versus placebo
Val-HeFT (AF ancillary study), 2003
valsartan
versus
placebo
Heart failure
Follow-up duration: 1.92 y
GISSI-AF (Disertori), 2009
NCT00376272
valsartan
versus
placebo
patients in sinus rhythm but with either two or more documented episodes of atrial fibrillation in the previous 6 months or successful cardioversion for atrial fibrillation in the previous 2 weeks and with underlying cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or left atrial enlargementdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
warfarin + aspirin versus warfarin standard dose
AFASAK II (warfarin low dose+aspirin vs warfarin standard dose), 1998
warfarin fixed low dose(1.25mg/d) + aspirin(300mg/d)
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2.0-3.0)
chronic non valvular atrial fibrillationOpen
Follow-up duration: 3.5 years
Denmark
SPAF III, 1996
warfarin low dose(target INR 1.2-1.5)+ aspirin 325 mg/d
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2.0-3.0)
non rheumatic atrial fibrillation,patients with at least one additional thromboembolic risk factor(high risk patients)Open
Follow-up duration: 1.1 years
USA,Canada
warfarin low dose versus control
BAATAF (warfarin vs no treatment), 1990
NCT00000517
warfarin low dose (target INR:1.5-2.7)
versus
no placebo.people received no treatment but could choose to take aspirin.
non rheumatic AFOpen
Follow-up duration: 2.2 years
warfarin low dose versus placebo
SPINAF (warfarin vs placebo), 1992
warfarin low dose(target INR 1.4-2.8)
versus
placebo
men ,with chronic nonrheumatic atrial fibrillationDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.75 years
usa
warfarin low dose versus warfarin standard dose
AFASAK II (warfarin low dose vs warfarin standard dose), 1998
warfarin fixed low dose (1.25 mg/d)
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2-3)
chronic non valvular atrial fibrillationOpen
Follow-up duration: 3.5 years
Denmark
MWNAF, 1998
warfarin low dose (1.25mg/d)
versus
warfarin standard dose( target INR 2.0-3.0)
Patients over 60 with non rheumatic atrial fibrillationOpen
Follow-up duration: 14.5 months
Italy
warfarin low dose + aspirin versus control
SAFT(warfarin low dose + aspirin vs no treatment), 2003
warfarin low dose (1.25 mg/d) + aspirin 75 mg/d
versus
no treatment
Low-medium risk patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation.Open
Follow-up duration: 33 months
Sweden
warfarin standard dose versus control
AFASAK (warfarin standard dose vs control), 1989
warfarin standard dose(target INR:2.8-4.2)
versus
control
chronic non rheumatic AFOpen
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Denmark
SPAF (warfarin standard dose), 1991
warfarin standard dose(target INR:2.0-4.5)
versus
control
Open
Follow-up duration: 1.3 years
USA
warfarin standard dose versus placebo
CAFA, 1991
warfarin standard dose (target INR 2-3)
versus
placebo
non rheumatic atrial fibrillationDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 15.2 months
canada
Watchman versus warfarin
PROTECT-AF,
NCT00129545
closure of the left atrial appendage(LAA) using the Watchman device
versus
long-term warfarin therapy
patients with documented nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who could take long-term warfarin, but without any indication that would require warfarinopen
Follow-up duration: 900 patients-year
US, Europe
ximelagatran versus warfarin standard dose
SPORTIF V, 2005
ximelegatran 36 mg twice daily
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2-3)
One or more stroke risk factor in addition to atrial fibrillation.High risk patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation. Double blind
Follow-up duration: 20 months
north america
SPORTIF II (ximelagatran vs warfarin standard dose), 2002
ximelegatran 20,40,60 mg twice daily
versus
warfarin standard dose(target INR 2-3)
Medium to high risk patients with chronic non valvular atrial fibrillation. Open
Follow-up duration: 16 weeks
Europe ,USA
SPORTIF III, 2003
ximelagatran 36 mg twice daily
versus
warfarin standard dose (target INR 2-3)
One or more stroke risk factor in addition to AF.High risk patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation.Open
Follow-up duration: 17.4 months
europe,asia,australasia
YM150 versus warfarin standard dose
phase 2 YM150, 0
NCT00448214
YM150 ASTELLAS
versus
warfarin
subjects with non-valvular atrial fibrillation open
Australia