Efficacy and safety of different antiarrhythmic protocols used for rate control in dogs with secondary atrial fibrillation

Introduction/Objectives: Studies comparing the effects of antiarrhythmic protocols used for rate control in dogs with secondary atrial fibrillation (AF) are currently limited; therefore, this study aimed to report detailed data on the efficacy and therapy-related side-effects (TRSEs) of different antiarrhythmic protocols in dogs with secondary AF. Animals, Materials, and Methods: Dogs with secondary AF treated with combination therapy with diltiazem and digoxin (CTDilt+Digox), diltiazem monotherapy (MTDilt), digoxin monotherapy (MTDigox), or amiodarone monotherapy (MTAmiod) were retrospectively evaluated. Signalment, clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and outcome data were retrieved. Electrocardiographically, antiarrhythmic efficacy was defined by a reduction in the mean heart rate on Holter monitoring ≤125 beats/minutes. Statistical analysis was performed to compare selected data, including the rate of efficacy and TRSEs as well as the median survival time, between dogs treated with different antiarrhythmic protocols. Results: Fifty-four dogs were included, with 28 receiving the CTDilt+Digox and 26 receiving monotherapies (MTDigox = 16; MTDilt = 5; MTAmiod = 5). The efficacy rate documented in dogs treated with CTDilt+Digox was significantly higher than that observed in dogs from the composite monotherapy group (i.e., MTDilt+MTDigox+MTAmiod) (P=0.048). The rate of TRSEs documented in dogs treated with CTDilt+Digox was similar to that observed in dogs from the composed monotherapy group (P=0.129). The median survival time documented in dogs treated with CTDilt+Digox was significantly longer than that observed in dogs of the MTDigox group (P=0.01). Discussion: In dogs with secondary AF we included, CTDilt+Digox was well tolerated and provided clinically relevant benefits compared to the use of a single antiarrhythmic drug. Limitations: Retrospective design; heterogeneous sample size of categories analyzed; clinicopathological data available for many, but not all, dogs. Conclusions: Our findings support the indication to generally consider CTDilt+Digox as a first-line antiarrhythmic treatment in dogs with secondary AF.