Vernakalant for cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vernakalant for the cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the literature for randomized trials that compared vernakalant to another drug or placebo in patients with AF of onset ≤7 days. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). From 441 total citations in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (December 2018), we identified nine trials evaluating 1358 participants. Six trials compared vernakalant to placebo, two trials compared vernakalant to ibutilide, and one trial compared vernakalant to amiodarone. We found significant methodological bias in four trials. For conversion within 90 min, vernakalant was superior to placebo [50% conversion, risk ratio (RR) 5.15; 95% confidence interval (CI); 2.24-11.84, I2 = 91%], whereas we found no significant difference in conversion when vernakalant was compared with an active drug (56% vs. 24% conversion, RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.76-7.58, I2 = 94). Sinus rhythm was maintained at 24 h in 85% (95% CI 80-88%) of patients who converted acutely with vernakalant. Overall, we judged the quality of evidence for efficacy to be low based on inconsistency and suspected publication bias. There was no significant difference in the risk of significant adverse events between vernakalant and comparator (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.70-1.28, I2 = 0, moderate quality evidence). Vernakalant is safe and effective for rapid and durable restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with recent-onset AF. CONCLUSION: Vernakalant should be a first line option for the pharmacological cardioversion of patients with haemodynamically stable recent-onset AF without severe structural heart disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".