Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2025

Transesophageal Atrial Burst Pacing for Atrial Fibrillation Induction in Rats
Published on: February 14, 2022
Amiodarone vs. metoprolol succinate in HFrEF complicated with persistent atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, People's Hospital of Chongqing Hechuan, Chongqing, China.
Background:
β-blockers have been recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), but studies have shown that β-blockers do not reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF and AF.
Objective:
To investigate the difference in efficacy between oral amiodarone and metoprolol succinate for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (pAF) with rapid ventricular response (RVR).
Methods:
Patients with HFrEF complicated with pAF with RVR treated in the People's Hospital of Chongqing Hechuan between March 2018 and March 2019 were enrolled in this prospective observational study. The primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and the first hospitalization for HF rate. The secondary outcomes were type B pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) before/after treatment, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before/after treatment, average heart rate (AhR), and the rate of sinus rhythm after 1 year of follow-up.
Results:
A total of 242 patients with HFrEF complicated with pAF with RVR were enrolled and divided into amiodarone + perindopril + spironolactone+ routine drug (amiodarone group, n = 121) and metoprolol succinate + perindopril + spironolactone +routine drug (metoprolol succinate group, n = 121) according to their treatment strategy. Cardiovascular mortality (4.9 vs. 12.4%, HR: 2.500, 95%CI: 1.002-6.237, P = 0.040) and first hospitalization for HF (52.9 vs. 67.8%, HR: 1.281, 95%CI: 1.033-1.589, P = 0.024) were significantly lower in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group. The mean ventricular rate in the amiodarone group was significantly lower than in the metoprolol group (64.5 ± 3.2 vs. 72.4 ± 4.2, P < 0.001). After 1 year of follow-up, the sinus rhythm rate was significantly higher in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group (38.8 vs. 7.4%, HR: 0.191, 95%CI: 0.098-0.374, P < 0.001). The difference in proBNP (3,914.88 vs. 2,558.07, P < 0.001) and LVEF (-6.89 vs. -0.98, P < 0.001) before and after treatment was significantly higher in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, in this prospective observational study, the amiodarone group had lower risk of cardiovascular death and the first hospitalization for HF than metoprolol in HFrEF and persistent atrial fibrillation (pAF) with RVR. The mechanism may be related to improved cardiac function, rhythm control and ventricular rate control.
Registration Number:
ChiCTR2200057816; Registered 7 March 2022-Retrospectively registered: http://www.medresman.org.cn/pub/cn/proj/projectshshow.aspx?proj=4222.
More Related Videos
12:45Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
08:31Isolation of Atrial Cardiomyocytes from a Rat Model of Metabolic Syndrome-related Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: July 26, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class III Agents as Potassium Channel Blockers
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class II Agents as β-Adrenergic Blockers
Disturbances in Heart Rhythm
Arrhythmias are categorized by their speed, rhythm, and origin. A slow heart...
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers