Pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We sought to identify the most effective antidysrhythmic drug for pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to March 2019, limited to human subjects and English language. We also searched for unpublished data. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult patients with AF ≤ 48 h and compared antidysrhythmic agents, placebo, or control. We determined these outcomes prior to data extraction: (i) rate of conversion to sinus rhythm within 24 h, (ii) time to cardioversion to sinus rhythm, (iii) rate of significant adverse events, and (iv) rate of thromboembolism within 30 days. We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised selected trials using the Cochrane review handbook. The systematic review initially identified 640 studies; 30 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials that randomized 2785 patients provided efficacy data for the conversion rate outcome. Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model demonstrated that ranolazine + amiodarone intravenous (IV) [odds ratio (OR) 39.8, 95% credible interval (CrI) 8.3-203.1], vernakalant (OR 22.9, 95% CrI 3.7-146.3), flecainide (OR 16.9, 95% CrI 4.1-73.3), amiodarone oral (OR 10.2, 95% CrI 3.1-36.0), ibutilide (OR 7.9, 95% CrI 1.2-52.5), amiodarone IV (OR 5.4, 95% CrI 2.1-14.6), and propafenone (OR 4.1, 95% CrI 1.7-10.5) were associated with significantly increased likelihood of conversion within 24 h when compared to placebo/control. Overall quality was low, and the network exhibited inconsistency. Probabilistic analysis ranked vernakalant and flecainide high and propafenone and amiodarone IV low. CONCLUSION: For pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset AF within 24 h, there is insufficient evidence to determine which treatment is superior. Vernakalant and flecainide may be relatively more efficacious agents. Propafenone and IV amiodarone may be relatively less efficacious. Further high-quality study is necessary.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".