| 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 episode | open 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 months | double 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 year | double 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 AF | single Follow-up duration: 24 months |
| amiodarone versus quinidine | |||
| Vitolo, 1981 | Amiodarone 400 mg/d versus Quinidine 1,2 g/d | Any persistent AF | open 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 deathpj | open 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 treatment | double 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 AF | double 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 month | double 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 patients | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.3 years USA |
| SPAF (aspirin,warfarin ineligible arm), 1991 | aspirin 325mg/d
versus placebo | nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, warfarin ineligible patients | Double 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 fibrillation | Double 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 fibrillation | Open 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 AF | Open 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 fibrillation | Open 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 stroke | open 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 therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 3.7 y |
| atorvastatin versus control | |||
| Ozaydin, 2006 | atorvastatin 10 mg versus standard therapy | Persistent AF and scheduled EC | open 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 AF | double-blind Follow-up duration: 16 weeks |
| Chello, 2006 | atorvastatin 20mg daily versus placebo | patients with scheduled coronary bypass surgery | double-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 syndrome | double blind Follow-up duration: 16 weeks |
| Dernellis, 2006 | atorvastatin 20–40 mg versus placebo | Paroxysmal AF with CRP between 0.8 and 13 mg/L | NA 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) therapy | open |
| 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 stroke | double 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 years | double 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 years | open 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 AF | double 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 AF | open 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 >=6mo | open 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 AF | open 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 >=3mo | open Follow-up duration: 12 months USA, Italy,Germany |
| Krittayaphong, 2003 | left atrial catheter ablation versus amiodarone | drug-refractory amiodarone-naive paroxysmal or persistent AF >=6mo | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Thailand |
| CABANA, 2018 NCT00911508). | left atrial catheter ablation versus current state-of-the-art therapy with either rate control or rhythm control drugs | patients with untreated or incompletely treated AF | open North America, Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Australia |
| STOP-AF, 2010 NCT00523978 | cryo-balloon catheter for pulmonary vein isolation versus nonfailed antiarrhythmic drugs | patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation | open Follow-up duration: 12 mo |
| 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 events | double 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 Fibrillation | open (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 year | open 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 AF | double 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 LVEF | double 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 months | double 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 factors | double-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 randomization | double 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 death | double blind Follow-up duration: 21.5 months 37 countries |
| DAFNE, 2003 | Dronedarone various doses (800, 1200, 1600 mg/d) versus placebo | patients with Persistent AF | double blind |
| ERATO, 2008 18760136 | dronedarone 400 mg twice daily versus placebo | patients with permanent AF | double 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 months | double 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 Fibrillation | double-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 1 | double-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 fibrillation | open 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 cardioversionio | open 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 fibrillation | open Follow-up duration: 1.6 y |
| enalapril versus control | |||
| Ueng, 2003 | enalapril versus control | atrial fibrillation | open 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 before | open 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 AF | double 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 less | double 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 thromboembolism | open 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 fibrillation | open 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 fibrillation | open Follow-up duration: 3 y the Netherlands |
| lisinopril versus placebo | |||
| Van den Burg, 1995 | lisinopril versus placebo | atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure | double 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 year | double 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 rhythm | double-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 death | open 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 fibrillation | open 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 fibrillation | open Follow-up duration: 37 months |
| pilsicainide versus placebo | |||
| Okishige, 2000 | Pilsicainide 150 mg/d/d versus placebo | Persistent AF lasting > 6 months | single |
| 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 months | open 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 AF | double 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 year | double blind Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| Stroobandt, 1997 | Propafenone 450 mg/d versus placebo | Recent-onset AF or persistent AF lasting > 2 weeks | double 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 months | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| propafenone versus sotalol | |||
| Reimold, 1993 | Propafenone 675 mg/d versus Sotalol 320 mg/d | Any symptomatic AF or AFlx-xbitm | open 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 duration | open 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 year | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| quinidine versus placebo | |||
| Byrne Quinn, 1979 | Quinidine 1.2 g/d versus placebo | Persistent AF | double 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 years | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| PAFAC (quinidine vs placebo), 2004 | Quinidine 0,480 g/d (+ verapamil versus placebo | Persistent AF lasting > 7 daysil | double 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 months | open 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 year | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Kalusche, 1994 | Quinidine 1 g/d versus Sotalol 240-400 mg/dt | AF lasting from 2 weeks to 2 years | open 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 months | open 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 fibrillation | open 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 cardioversionio | open 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 fibrillation | open 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 death | open 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 fibrillation | open 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 fibrillation | open 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 attack | double-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 Fibrillation | double 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 entry | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3.7y (median) Italy |
| sotalol versus bisoprolol | |||
| Plewan, 2001 | Sotalol 160 mg/d versus bisoprolol 5 mg/d | Persistent AF | open 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 months | double 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 year | double 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 patients | Open 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 enlargement | double 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 fibrillation | Open 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 AF | Open 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 fibrillation | Double 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 fibrillation | Open 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 fibrillation | Open 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 AF | Open 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 fibrillation | Double 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 warfarin | open 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 |
-
About
-
Browse pathology
|
treatment
-
Site map
-
Credits
Made with in Lyon
-
Contact us
-
Privacy policy
-
