Cibenzoline versus flecainide in the prevention of paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias: a double-blind randomized study

In a randomized, double-blind, parallel clinical trial, the authors tested and compared flecainide and cibenzoline, a new antiarrhythmic drug, on atrial arrhythmias. Sixty-eight patients (36 men, 32 women, mean age 62.5 +/- 1.6 years) with documented symptomatic paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias (fibril...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of clinical pharmacology Vol. 35; no. 5; p. 471
Main Authors:	Babuty, D, D'Hautefeuille, B, Scheck, F, Mycinsky, C, Pruvost, P, Peraudeau, P
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England 01-05-1995
Subjects:	Aged Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - adverse effects Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - therapeutic use Atrial Fibrillation - prevention & control Atrial Flutter - prevention & control Double-Blind Method Drug Tolerance Echocardiography Electrocardiography - methods Electrocardiography, Ambulatory Female Flecainide - adverse effects Flecainide - therapeutic use Follow-Up Studies Humans Imidazoles - adverse effects Imidazoles - therapeutic use Male Middle Aged Physical Examination Recurrence
Online Access:	Get more information
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	In a randomized, double-blind, parallel clinical trial, the authors tested and compared flecainide and cibenzoline, a new antiarrhythmic drug, on atrial arrhythmias. Sixty-eight patients (36 men, 32 women, mean age 62.5 +/- 1.6 years) with documented symptomatic paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias (fibrillation in 56, flutter in 12) were recruited and received either cibenzoline 260 mg/day (n = 33) or flecainide 200 mg/day (n = 35). Patients were assessed with physical examination, resting ECG, 24-hour ambulatory ECG recording, two-dimensional echocardiography, and standard biologic titrations before the inclusion day, and 3 months and 6 months after the randomization day. Sixteen patients were withdrawn (7 were lost to follow-up, 7 had side effects, 2 had another medical event). Seventeen patients had documented recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (9 in the cibenzoline group, 8 in the flecainide group) during the study. The efficacy of cibenzoline and flecainide for preventing recurrence of atrial arrhythmias was not significantly different (62.5% versus 71.4%). Eleven patients complained of one or more side effects (cibenzoline, n = 6; flecainide, n = 5), justifying leaving the trial in 6 cases (cibenzoline, n = 3; flecainide, n = 3). Two ventricular proarrhythmic effects were observed. No atrial proarrhythmic effects were reported. The efficacy of cibenzoline and flecainide for preventing atrial arrhythmia is good and similar during a follow-up period of 6 months. In view of these results, cibenzoline may be administered first to prevent atrial arrhythmia.
ISSN:	0091-2700
DOI:	10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04090.x