Search

The dataset presented here provides a detailed description of the adverse events of amiodarone versus placebo using data from 43 randomized controlled trials. Two authors (M.M., M.R.) independently extracted the data. The dataset also includes baseline patient characteristics, amiodarone loading and maintenance doses, as well as forest plots describing the relative risk (RR) of developing an adverse event related to the pulmonary, thyroid, hepatic, cardiac, skin, gastrointestinal, neurological, and ocular systems. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to determine the relative risk of adverse events of amiodarone compared to placebo. This dataset is complementary to our article “Meta-analysis Comparing the Relative Risk of Adverse Events for Amiodarone Versus Placebo”, which was published in the American Journal of Cardiology [1]. The data can be used to assess certain adverse events and their relation to amiodarone loading and/or maintenance dose.

Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials comparing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) reported improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life using the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLWHFQ), and 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Nonetheless, there was significant heterogeneity not accounted for suggesting that not all HF patients derive the same effect from AF ablation. Objectives To evaluate if baseline LVEF or the etiology of the cardiomyopathy would moderate the efficacy of AF ablation. Methods We performed random effects meta-regression using the mean baseline LVEF and total percentage of patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP) in the placebo arms as moderator variables. Results Six trials with a total of 687 patients were included. The baseline LVEF in the control arm of trials ranged from 25% - 42.9%, and the percentage of patients with NICMP within each trial varied from 35% to 100%. When baseline LVEF was used as the moderator variable, no significant change in heterogeneity was observed for any of the outcomes of interest (R2 0.00 - 0.02). However, when controlling for NICMP, heterogeneity dropped substantially for the outcomes of LVEF (I2 44.7%, R2 0.91), and MLWHFQ (I2 0.00%, R2 1.00) but not 6MWT (I2 67.4%, R2 0.00). This indicates that improvement in LVEF and MLWHFQ was greater in the AF ablation group when more patients with NICMP were included in the trials. Conclusions In patients with systolic HF, AF ablation may be more beneficial in patients with NICMP.

Amiodarone has been associated with adverse events that may restrict its use. We performed a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials to assess the relative risk of adverse events of amiodarone compared with placebo. In total, 43 randomized trials were included. A total of 11,395 patients were included (5,792 patients randomized to amiodarone and 5,603 patients randomized to placebo). The incident rate of adverse events per 10,000 person-years was higher in the amiodarone group compared with placebo for pulmonary (129 vs 74; relative risk (RR) 1.77, p = 0.002), thyroid (201 vs 42; RR 4.44, p0.001), hepatic (54 vs 25; RR 2.27, p = 0.01), cardiac (771 vs 450; RR 1.94, p0.001), neurological (140 vs 76; RR 1.93, p0.001), and skin (81 vs 23; RR 1.99, p = 0.04) adverse events. Low-dose amiodarone was not associated with statistically significant increase in pulmonary adverse events but was still associated with thyroid and liver adverse events. In conclusion, the likelihood of experiencing adverse events related to amiodarone was higher than that of placebo. The overall rate of adverse events however, was low, and severe adverse events were rare.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are two common conditions that often coexist and predispose each to one another. AF increases hospitalization rates and overall mortality in patients with HF. The current available therapeutic options for AF in patients with HF are diverse and guidelines do not provide a clear consensus regarding the best management approach. To determine if catheter ablation for AF is superior to medical therapy alone in patients with coexisting HF, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary outcomes evaluated are left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) scores, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, heart failure hospitalizations, and mortality. The results are presented as a mean difference for continuous outcome measures and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes (using Mantel-Haenszel random effects model). 7 full texts met inclusion criteria, including 856 patients. AF catheter ablation was associated with a significant increase in LVEF (mean difference 6.8%; 95% CI: 3.5 – 10.1; P