Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,143

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Amiodarone to Prevent Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation

Open access
Roy, Denis, Talajic, Mario, Dorian, Paul, Connolly, Stuart, Eisenberg, Mark J., Green, Martin, Kus, Teresa, Lambert, Jean, Dubuc, Marc, Gagné, Pierre, Nattel, Stanley, Thibault, Bernard·2000·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is a desirable goal in patients with atrial fibrillation, because the prevention of recurrences can improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that amiodarone in low doses may be more effective and safer than other agents in preventing recurrence, but this agent has not been tested in a large, randomized trial. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, multicenter trial to test the hypothesis that low doses of amiodarone would be more efficacious in preventing recurrent atrial fibrillation than therapy with sotalol or propafenone. We randomly assigned patients who had had at least one episode of atrial fibrillation within the previous six months to amiodarone or to sotalol or propafenone, given in an open-label fashion. The patients in the group assigned to sotalol or propafenone underwent a second randomization to determine whether they would receive sotalol or propafenone first; if the first drug was unsuccessful the second agent was prescribed. Loading doses of the drugs were administered and electrical cardioversion was performed (if necessary) within 21 days after randomization for all patients in both groups. The follow-up period began 21 days after randomization. The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Of the 403 patients in the study, 201 were assigned to amiodarone and 202 to either sotalol (101 patients) or propafenone (101 patients). After a mean of 16 months of follow-up, 71 of the patients who were assigned to amiodarone (35 percent) and 127 of those who were assigned to sotalol or propafenone (63 percent) had a recurrence of atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). Adverse events requiring the discontinuation of drug therapy occurred in 18 percent of the patients receiving amiodarone, as compared with 11 percent of those treated with sotalol or propafenone (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone is more effective than sotalol or propafenone for the prevention of recurrences of atrial fibrillation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm200003303421302

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,143

Metadata

Authors
Roy, D., Talajic, M., Dorian, P., Connolly, S., Eisenberg, M. J., Green, M., Kus, T., Lambert, J., Dubuc, M., Gagné, P., Nattel, S., & Thibault, B.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2000-03-30
Volume
342
Issue
13
Pages
913-920
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2326579808
Cited by
1,143
References
1
FWCI
54.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Amiodarone to Prevent Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200003303421302
The paper
Roy, D., Talajic, M., Dorian, P., Connolly, S., Eisenberg, M. J., Green, M., Kus, T., Lambert, J., Dubuc, M., Gagné, P., Nattel, S., & Thibault, B. (2000). Amiodarone to Prevent Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200003303421302

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.