Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Nov 1;58(19):1975–1985. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.07.036

Figure 3. Secondary Composite Outcome (ICU Hospitalizations or Death): Individual Antirarrhythmic Drugs versus Rate.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Panel A:

Hazard ratios and Kaplan Meier survival analyses comparing individual antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) with matched rate cohorts for secondary composite outcome - Time to First Hospitalization with intensive care unit stay (ICUH) or Death

Individual panels are shown as follows
  1. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (HR=Rhythm drug/Rate).
  2. Propensity score matched Rate and amiodarone subgroups
  3. Propensity score matched Rate and sotalol subgroups
  4. Propensity score matched Rate and c 1C subgroups.

Composite outcome shows time to ICUH or death was shorter with amiodarone but not with sotalol or class 1C versus Rate during follow-up.

Panel B:

Comparison of ICU Hospitalizations: Individual Antirarrhythmic Drugs versus Rate

Hazard ratios and Kaplan Meier survival analyses comparing individual antiarrhythmic drugs with matched rate cohorts for secondary outcome - Time to First ICU Hospitalization (ICUH)

Individual panels are shown as follows
  1. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (HR=Rhythm drug/Rate).
  2. Propensity score matched Rate and amiodarone subgroups
  3. Propensity score matched Rate and sotalol subgroups
  4. Propensity score matched Rate and class1C subgroups.

Time to ICUH was comparable for sotalol and Class 1C groups compared to matched rate cohorts but a non-significant increased risk was seen with amiodarone compared to rate during follow-up.