Dronedarone: a real innovation or a mere second-best choice? How to find the way among guidelines, regulatory agencies and daily clinical practice

Dronedarone is the antiarrhythmic drug with the most complete and wide literature preceding its marketing. Most of these studies showed a good efficacy along with an excellent risk profile, especially in low- and medium-risk patients. Recently, updates of European, American and even Italian guidelines gave dronedarone its own spot into the antiarrhythmic armamentarium, recommending its use both for rhythm control and rate control in non-permanent atrial fibrillation. In Italy, however, dronedarone prescription is still possible only when amiodarone is not tolerated, making dronedarone a mere second choice of its older "relative". Moreover, patients taking dronedarone must undergo a strict alanine aminotransferase and bilirubin follow-up, which usefulness in predicting drug-induced liver damage (probably idiosyncratic in nature and therefore unpredictable) is far from demonstrated. The aim of this review is to sum up actual evidences on dronedarone, describe how these evidences had been differently transposed by panel of experts and drug agencies into guidelines and recommendations, and define the current difficulties encountered by the cardiologist in the correct use of this new antiarrhythmic agent in clinical practice.