Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How well do heart rate drugs work for dogs with atrial fibrillation
By Romito, G et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary cardiology : the official journal of the European Society of Veterinary Cardiology·2025·Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, Italy·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Efficacy and safety of different antiarrhythmic protocols used for rate control in dogs with secondary atrial fibrillation.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with secondary atrial fibrillation (AF), a heart rhythm problem, were treated with different medications to control their heart rate. The dogs that received a combination of diltiazem and digoxin had better results than those on single medications like diltiazem, digoxin, or amiodarone. Not only did the combination therapy help lower their heart rates more effectively, but it also resulted in a longer survival time without increasing side effects. Overall, the combination treatment was well tolerated and showed significant benefits for these dogs.
People also search for: dog atrial fibrillation treatment · heart rate control in dogs · diltiazem and digoxin for dogs
Abstract
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 (CT), diltiazem monotherapy (MT), digoxin monotherapy (MT), or amiodarone monotherapy (MT) 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 CTand 26 receiving monotherapies (MT = 16; MT = 5; MT = 5). The efficacy rate documented in dogs treated with CTwas significantly higher than that observed in dogs from the composite monotherapy group (i.e., MT+MT+MT) (P=0.048). The rate of TRSEs documented in dogs treated with CTwas similar to that observed in dogs from the composed monotherapy group (P=0.129). The median survival time documented in dogs treated with CTwas significantly longer than that observed in dogs of the MTgroup (P=0.01). DISCUSSION: In dogs with secondary AF we included, CTwas 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 CT as a first-line antiarrhythmic treatment in dogs with secondary AF.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39591830/