Abstract:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of arrhythmia, carrying high social costs. It is usually first seen by general practitioners or in emergency departments. Despite the availability of consensus guidelines, considerable variations exist in treatment practice, especially outside specialised cardiological settings. Cardioversion to sinus rhythm aims to: (i) restore the atrial contribution to ventricular filling/output; (ii) regularise ventricular rate; and (iii) interrupt atrial remodelling. Cardioversion always requires careful assessment of potential proarrhythmic and thromboembolic risks, and this translates into the need to personalise treatment decisions. Among the many clinical variables that affect strategy selection, time from onset is crucial. In selected patients, pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset AF can be a safely used, feasible and effective approach, even in internal medicine and emergency departments. In most cases of recent-onset AF, pharmacological cardioversion provides an important--and probably more cost effective--alternative to electrical cardioversion, which can then be employed as a second-line therapy for nonresponders. Class IC agents (flecainide or propafenone), which can be safely used in hospitalised patients with recent-onset AF without left ventricular dysfunction, can provide rapid conversion to sinus rhythm after either intravenous administration or oral loading. Although intravenous amiodarone requires longer conversion times, it is still the standard treatment for patients with heart failure. Ibutilide also provides good conversion rates and could be used for AF patients with left ventricular dysfunction (were it not for high costs). For long-lasting AF most pharmacological treatments have only limited efficacy and electrical cardioversion remains the gold standard in this setting. However, a widely used strategy involves pretreatment with amiodarone in the weeks before planned electrical cardioversion: this provides optimal prophylaxis and can sometimes even restore sinus rhythm. Dofetilide may also be capable of restoring sinus rhythm in up to 25-30% of patients and can be used in patients with heart failure. The potential risk of proarrhythmia increases the need for careful therapeutic decision making and management of pharmacological cardioversion. The results of recent trials (AFFIRM [Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management] and RACE [Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation]) on rate versus rhythm control strategies in the long term have led to a generalised shift in interest towards rate control. Although carefully designed studies are required to better define the role of pharmacological rhythm control in specific AF settings, this alternative option remains a recommendable strategy for many patients, especially those in acute care.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and sex differences: Insights from the CANT II Study

Efficacy and safety of antazoline for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: propensity score matching analysis of a multicenter registry (CANT II Study)

Pharmacological Cardioversion in Patients with Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease Subanalysis of the CANT II Study

Pharmacological Cardioversion With Antazoline in Atrial Fibrillation: The Results of the CANT Study

Pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: practical considerations

Sex- and age-specific differences in the use of antiarrhythmic therapies among atrial fibrillation patients: a nationwide cohort study

Which antiarrhythmic drug to choose after electrical cardioversion: A study on non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients

Sex difference in atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs

Efficacy and safety in pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a propensity score matching to compare amiodarone vs class IC antiarrhythmic drugs

Pharmacologic Cardioversion in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis

Pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: current management and treatment options

Randomized double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety between antazoline and propafenone for conversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm (AnProAF study)

Pharmacologic cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Antiarrhythmic preferences and outcomes post DC cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, an Australian rural perspective

New Perspectives in The Management of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Dual AntiArrhythmic Medications

The effect of antiarrhythmic medications on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease

Gender Differences With Ibutilide Effectiveness and Safety in Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation

Mixed treatment comparison of dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, flecainide, and propafenone, for the management of atrial fibrillation

Sex Differences in the Efficacy of Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone vs. Extensive Catheter Ablation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: the use of antiarrhythmic drugs

Interventions for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis