SynthesisMedicine2026
Role of antazoline in cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. Antazoline, a first-generation antihistamine with antiarrhythmic properties, has shown efficacy in the rapid conversion of recent-onset AF to sinus rhythm; however, direct comparative evidence against standard antiarrhythmic agents remains limited. This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antazoline for pharmacological cardioversion of AF, in comparison with standard antiarrhythmic agents such as amiodarone and propafenone.
methodsThe methodology of this systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in ScienceDirect, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from inception to April 2025, including citation and reference screening. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 2025.05.0 + 496.
resultsFrom 172 records, 5 studies comparing antazoline with propafenone (n = 5) or amiodarone (n = 3) for AF were included. For antazoline vs propafenone, conversion to sinus rhythm favored antazoline (risk ratio [RR] 1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-1.23], P = .017). No significant difference was observed in time to conversion (mean difference -10.98 [95% CI: -124.93-102.98], P = .436), bradycardia (RR 0.84 [95% CI: 0.35-2.03], P = .478), hypotension (RR 0.40 [95% CI: 0.14-1.12], P = .056), or other adverse events (RR 1.24 [95% CI: 0.01-247.13], P = .694). For antazoline vs amiodarone, conversion to sinus rhythm favored antazoline (RR 1.22 [95% CI: 1.08-1.36], P = .018, I2 = 0%), with no significant differences in bradycardia (RR 1.36 [95% CI: 0-1072357.09], P = .823) or hypotension (RR 1.05 [95% CI: 0.04-26.16], P = .877).
conclusionAntazoline might be more effective than propafenone and amiodarone in achieving sinus rhythm in AF, with no significant differences in safety outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.