Background: Flecainide and propafenone are Class Ic antiarrhythmic drugs that block the cardiac fast inwards Na⁺ current and are used for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on long-term clinical efficacy and safety of these drugs in a real-world setting are scarce. Methods: Patients with AF who received chronic flecainide or propafenone therapy were retrospectively studied from the database of a tertiary care center. The primary outcome of the study was clinical efficacy of Class Ic antiarrhythmics, which was assessed based on the improvement of arrhythmia-related symptoms at the time of last follow-up. Results: Among the 361 patients (261 males, 72.3%) with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years, 287 (79.5%) were using long-term flecainide, and 74 (20.5%) patients propafenone. The majority of the patients had paroxysmal AF (n = 331, 91.7%) and had an atrioventricular-nodal blocking co-medication (n = 287, 79.5%). A total of 117 (32%) patients discontinued therapy after a median of 210 days (interquartile range 62–855 days). Clinical efficacy was observed in 188 patients (52%). The most common reason for therapy discontinuation was adverse drug effects, particularly proarrhythmic effects (48% for flecainide and 33% for propafenone). Patients who did not clinically benefit from Class Ic antiarrhythmics more often underwent pulmonary vein isolation (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Long-term therapy with Class Ic antiarrhythmics showed clinical efficacy in approximately half of the patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. However, these drugs were also associated with a relatively high rate of adverse events, and in particular proarrhythmic effects, which often resulted in therapy discontinuation rendering appropriate patient selection and therapy surveillance essential. Background: Flecainide and propafenone are Class Ic antiarrhythmic drugs that block the cardiac fast inwards Na⁺ current and are used for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on long-term clinical efficacy and safety of these drugs in a real-world setting are scarce. Methods: Patients with AF who received chronic flecainide or propafenone therapy were retrospectively studied from the database of a tertiary care center. The primary outcome of the study was clinical efficacy of Class Ic antiarrhythmics, which was assessed based on the improvement of arrhythmia-related symptoms at the time of last follow-up. Results: Among the 361 patients (261 males, 72.3%) with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years, 287 (79.5%) were using long-term flecainide, and 74 (20.5%) patients propafenone. The majority of the patients had paroxysmal AF (n = 331, 91.7%) and had an atrioventricular-nodal blocking co-medication (n = 287, 79.5%). A total of 117 (32%) patients discontinued therapy after a median of 210 days (interquartile range 62–855 days). Clinical efficacy was observed in 188 patients (52%). The most common reason for therapy discontinuation was adverse drug effects, particularly proarrhythmic effects (48% for flecainide and 33% for propafenone). Patients who did not clinically benefit from Class Ic antiarrhythmics more often underwent pulmonary vein isolation (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Long-term therapy with Class Ic antiarrhythmics showed clinical efficacy in approximately half of the patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. However, these drugs were also associated with a relatively high rate of adverse events, and in particular proarrhythmic effects, which often resulted in therapy discontinuation rendering appropriate patient selection and therapy surveillance essential.

Publications with shared reference:

0 publications found