Sotalol 10mg/5ml oral solution

AimsVentricular tachycardia (VT) in ischaemic heart disease (IHD) requires complex management strategies including catheter ablation (CA) and anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs). The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety of CA vs. AADs in patients with IHD and VT.Methods and resultsWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with IHD and ICD randomized to CA or AADs. Primary outcome was appropriate ICD therapy. Secondary outcomes included inappropriate ICD therapy, cardiovascular (CV) re-hospitalization, all-cause/CV mortality, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted for amiodarone and sotalol, with an exploratory evaluation of a composite endpoint (ICD shock, VT storm, all-cause death). Four RCTs including 947 patients (mean age 68 ± 2 years; 93% male) were analysed. CA significantly reduced the risk of appropriate ICD therapy compared with AADs (149/470 [31.7%] vs. 229/477 [48.0%]; RR 0.81; 95% CI [0.67, 0.97]; P = 0.02). Among secondary outcomes, CA decreased the incidence of CV re-hospitalization [RR 0.84; 95% CI (0.72, 0.99); P = 0.04] and adverse events [RR 0.42; 95% CI (0.28, 0.62); P ConclusionIn ischaemic heart disease and VT, CA compared with anti-arrhythmic drugs is associated with a reduction of appropriate ICD therapy, cardiovascular re-hospitalization, and adverse events with benefits most evident versus sotalol.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundDronedarone and sotalol are antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) recommended in similar populations per atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines; however, comparative safety data are limited.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to assess the safety of dronedarone vs sotalol for treatment of AF in AAD-naive patients.MethodsThis was a prespecified noninterventional meta-analysis of 4 retrospective observational cohort studies from 4 databases (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart, Merative MarketScan, Veterans Health Administration Electronic Health Record, and the Swedish National Patient Register) conducted by using one master protocol. Each analysis emulated the target trial using an active comparator (dronedarone vs sotalol), new user design with an as-treated approach. Primary outcomes were tested hierarchically for dronedarone vs sotalol: first for statistical significance of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, and then for statistical significance of ventricular arrhythmias. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used for confounding control, and negative control outcomes were used to assess residual confounding. Outcomes were evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards regression; meta-analysis was performed by using fixed effects models.ResultsThe dronedarone and sotalol cohorts were well balanced within databases before and after PSM (after PSM mean age range: 62.5-70.9 years; mean CHA2DS2-VASc score range: 1.81-3.15). Negative control outcomes exhibited little-to-no evidence of residual confounding. Meta-analysis found significantly lower rates of CV hospitalization (pooled HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85-0.97) and ventricular arrhythmias (pooled HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69-0.85) with dronedarone vs sotalol.ConclusionsIn this retrospective meta-analysis, dronedarone exhibited significantly lower rates of CV hospitalization and ventricular arrhythmias compared with sotalol. These findings provide real-world evidence to support selection of the most appropriate first-line AAD for rhythm control in patients with AF.

Abstract licence: CC BY