Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Sotalol Versus Dronedarone After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

Background Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common after atrial fibrillation ablation, so adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy is often used. Data on the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone and sotalol after AF ablation are limited. Here, we compared health outcomes of patients who underwent an ablation and were treated with dronedarone versus sotalol. Methods and Results A comparative analysis of propensity score–matched retrospective cohorts was performed using Merative™ (formerly IBM) MarketScan Research Databases. Patients treated with dronedarone after atrial fibrillation ablation were matched 1:1 to patients treated with sotalol between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017. Outcomes of interest included cardiovascular hospitalization, proarrhythmia, repeat ablation, and cardioversion. This study was exempt from institutional review board review. Among 37 589 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation, 2230 were treated with dronedarone and 3986 with sotalol after ablation. Propensity‐score matching resulted in 2224 patients receiving dronedarone matched 1:1 to patients receiving sotalol. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was lower with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61–0.87]). 6 months (aHR, 0.73 [95% CI: 0.62–0.85] and 12 months after ablation (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI: 0.69–0.90]). Risk of repeat ablation and cardioversion generally did not differ between the 2 groups. A lower risk of proarrhythmia was associated with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66–0.89]), 6 months (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.70–0.91]), and 12 months (aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75–0.95]) after ablation. Conclusions These data suggest that dronedarone may be a more effective and safer alternative after ablation than sotalol.

Keywords

• atrial fibrillation
• catheter ablation
• treatment