вот статистика по обоим препаратам - соталол крайне редко назначают, дают ограниченное время и пациентам с меньшими факторами риска чем амиодарон
we compared cumulative survival among patients treated with sotalol (n = 226), amiodarone (n = 856), or no AAD (n = 1,756). Median follow-up was 4.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0–7.4). The median age was 68 years (IQR 60–75). Compared with those treated with amiodarone or no AAD, patients treated with sotalol were less likely to be black (6% vs 13% vs 13%) and have a previous myocardial infarction (35% vs 51% vs 48%) or a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (13% vs 26% vs 21%). In follow-up, persistence of sotalol was limited; 97% of patients treated with sotalol were treated for <25% of the follow-up period. In adjusted analysis accounting for time on therapy, sotalol use was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death compared with no drug (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.96, p = 0.0009), but a decreased risk of death compared with amiodarone (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.91, p = 0.0141). In conclusion, sotalol therapy was more frequently used in patients with fewer co-morbidities, often discontinued early in follow-up, and was associated with increased mortality compared with no AAD but decreased mortality relative to amiodarone.
Comparison of Safety of Sotalol Versus Amiodarone in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease 2014
|