 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / September 2004antiarrhythmic drug use: limitations
"The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of existing antiarrhythmic drugs. Over one-third of patients with new-onset AF received antiarrhythmic drugs despite the presence of contraindications or warnings. Although such restrictions may not preclude the use of these drugs, the results demonstrate the need for new antiarrhythmic drugs with fewer limitations." CMAJ · September 28, 2004; 171 (7). doi:10.1503/cmaj.1031277. © 2004 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors Research Recherche Limitations to antiarrhythmic drug use in patients with atrial fibrillation Karin H. Humphries, Charles R. Kerr, Michael Steinbuch and Paul Dorian for The Canadian Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (CARAF) Investigators http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/7/741 http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/171/7/741 > "The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a large > proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of existing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > results demonstrate the need for new antiarrhythmic drugs with fewer > limitations." No, they should find out the cause first. Drugs like beta blockers are have their own dangers. Fix the problem instead of treating the symptoms with bad drugs. > CMAJ · September 28, 2004; 171 (7). doi:10.1503/cmaj.1031277. © 2004 > Canadian Medical Association or its licensors [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/7/741 > http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/171/7/741 >> "The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a >> large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have their own dangers. Fix the problem instead of treating the > symptoms with bad drugs. That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? What makes you think that researchers are *not* exploring the underlying cause(s) of AF? "Fix the problem". Easy to say, sometimes difficult to do. Just a few years ago (10-20) there we're really no options for AF sufferers. At least now there *are* drug alternatives and evolving (and improving) ablation techniques. L. >Subject: Re: antiarrhythmic drug use: limitations >From: listener listener@nospam.net >Date: 9/29/2004 9:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <Xns95737C8ACBBE2some1outthere@38.144.126.102> >> large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of >>> existing antiarrhythmic drugs. Over one-third of patients with >>> new-onset AF received antiarrhythmic drugs despite the presence of >>> contraindications or warnings. throwing a clot is riskier than doing nothing.. in my h.o. hawki..... hawki63@aol.com (Hawki63) wrote in news:20040929123004.05710.00005379@mb- m14.aol.com: >>Subject: Re: antiarrhythmic drug use: limitations >>From: listener listener@nospam.net [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > hawki..... hawki, Your snipping makes it appear that I said the above, which I did not. And while I do feel that treating *new-onset* afib with meds should be done with caution, your point is an important one. (Of course, anticoagulation therapy can be effected to the exclusion of antiarrhythmic drugs.) L. >Subject: Re: antiarrhythmic drug use: limitations >From: listener listener@nospam.net >Date: 9/29/2004 9:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <Xns957384039FCE2some1outthere@38.144.126.79> >Your snipping makes it appear that I said the above, which I did not. sorry...my bad >anticoagulation therapy can be effected to the exclusion of >antiarrhythmic drugs.) true... hawki..... >>> "The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a >>> large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of existing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? No, hospital doctors are too ready to prescribe drugs like sotalol to persons presenting with infrequent AF such as was so in my case. Sotalol can induce torsaides del pointes and perhaps other deleterious effects as well. > What makes you think that researchers are *not* exploring the underlying > cause(s) of AF? My cardio isn't interested in finding out what is causing my AF. At least that is the impression I get from him. > "Fix the problem". Easy to say, sometimes difficult to do. Of course it's difficult. But hey, look at all the advances elsewhere. No, I think AF is (maybe was) a cinderella subject. I think that is changing slowly. > Just a few years ago (10-20) there we're really no options for AF > sufferers. At least now there *are* drug alternatives and evolving (and > improving) ablation techniques. Yes, and 100 years ago your local barber performed surgery. So what. Drugs treat symptoms and often they do it badly. Surgery may be corrective of course but ablation? That's like the old psycho surgerys. > L. >[...] ablation? That's like the old psycho surgerys. can you please explain your viewpoint? (I'm booked for ablation against paroxysmal AF next january). Thanks -- uplbet (in email reply delete 01234xxx from the address) >>>> "The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a >>>> large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sotalol can induce torsaides del pointes and perhaps other deleterious > effects as well. By "hosptial doctors" you mean ER situations? In my experience and in talking to many others in that situation cardizem and/or cardioversion is usually tried first. Of course these meds have side effects. All meds have side effects, from benign to some that are extremely serious. That does not mean that they are helping some people. >> What makes you think that researchers are *not* exploring the >> underlying cause(s) of AF? > > My cardio isn't interested in finding out what is causing my AF. At > least that is the impression I get from him. I said "researchers". Most cardiologists don't have the time to devote to research of, as my cardiologist in NYC once said to me, the "Holy Grail" of arrythmias [afib]. >> "Fix the problem". Easy to say, sometimes difficult to do. > > Of course it's difficult. But hey, look at all the advances elsewhere. > No, I think AF is (maybe was) a cinderella subject. I think that is > changing slowly. Advances in cardiology *have* been made. >> Just a few years ago (10-20) there we're really no options for AF >> sufferers. At least now there *are* drug alternatives and evolving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > corrective of course but ablation? That's like the old psycho > surgerys. This is nonsense. Ablation is helping many people live normal lives. Meds like tikosyn, flecainide, etc.. are also allowing others to live a normal sinus life. Are there risks? Of course. Are you angry about something? It seems to be clouding your thinking. L. >>>>> "The high burden of comorbid disease and concomitant drug use in a >>>>> large proportion of patients with AF limits the suitability of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > from benign to some that are extremely serious. That does not mean > that they are helping some people. Correction: should read ... "That does not mean that they are not helping some people." >>> What makes you think that researchers are *not* exploring the >>> underlying cause(s) of AF? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > L. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.