Brief reportTherapeutic efficacy and safety of oral propafenone for atrial fibrillation
References (8)
- et al.
Clinical efficacy and electrophysiology of oral propafenone for ventricular tachycardia
Am J Cardiol
(1983) - et al.
Propafenone: a new agent for ventricular arrhythmia
JACC
(1984) - et al.
Sustained therapeutic efficacy and safety of oral propafenone for treatment of chronic ventricular arrhythmia: a 2-year experience
Am Heart J
(1988) - et al.
Double-blind study of intravenous propafenone for paroxysmal supraventricular reentrant tachycardia
JACC
(1987)
Cited by (50)
2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Updates Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society
2011, Journal of the American College of CardiologyCitation Excerpt :The pattern of AF (paroxysmal or persistent), LA size, and previous response to drug therapy did not predict efficacy, but statistical power for this secondary analysis was limited. Other uncontrolled studies, usually involving selected patients refractory to other antiarrhythmic drugs, also support the efficacy of propafenone (605–609). In a randomized study, propafenone and disopyramide appeared equally effective in preventing postcardioversion AF, but propafenone was better tolerated (589).
Sotalol versus propafenone for long-term maintenance of normal sinus rhythm in patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation
2004, American Journal of CardiologyLong-term Maintenance of Normal Sinus Rhythm in Patients with Current Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation: Amiodarone vs Propafenone, Both in Low Doses
2004, ChestCitation Excerpt :As regards propafenone, our study showed that it is relatively safe. However, the low doses of propafenone and the fact that patients with severe heart disease or low cardiac output were excluded must be taken into account, since it is well known that the side effects of propafenone are dose dependent and tend to be higher in patients with underlying structural heart disease.234512131415161718192021 To our knowledge there is only one other study21 that has also compared these drugs; the authors claim that amiodarone is clearly superior to propafenone in maintaining sinus rhythm.
Pharmacologic conversion of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review of available evidence
2001, Progress in Cardiovascular DiseasesPropafenone for the Treatment of Supraventricular Tachycardia and Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis
1998, American Journal of CardiologyLow-dose amiodarone versus sotalol for suppression of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation
1998, American Journal of Cardiology