High-dosage continuous amiodarone therapy to treat new-onset supraventricular tachyarrhythmias in surgical intensive care patients: an observational study

Management of new onset atrial fibrillation in critically unwell adult patients: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically unwell patients. NOAF can lead to worsening haemodynamic compromise, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and increased mortality. The aim of this systematic review and narrative synthesis is to evaluate the non-pharmacological and pharmacological management strategies for NOAF in critically unwell patients.

METHODS

Of 1782 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion, including 4 RCTs and 26 observational studies. Efficacy of direct current cardioversion, amiodarone, β-antagonists, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, magnesium, and less commonly used agents such as ibutilide are reported.

RESULTS

Cardioversion rates of 48% were reported for direct current cardioversion; however, re-initiation of NOAF was as high as 23.4%. Amiodarone was the most commonly reported intervention with cardioversion rates ranging from 18% to 95.8% followed by β-antagonists with cardioversion rates from 40% to 92.3%. Amiodarone was more effective than diltiazem (odds ratio [OR]=1.91, P=0.32) at cardioversion. Short-acting β-antagonists esmolol and landiolol were more effective compared with diltiazem at cardioversion (OR=3.55, P=0.04) and HR control (OR=3.2, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was significant variation between studies with regard to the definition of successful cardioversion and heart rate control, making comparisons between studies and interventions difficult. Future RCTs comparing individual anti-arrhythmic agents, in particular magnesium, amiodarone, and β-antagonists, and the role of anticoagulation in critically unwell patients are required. There is also an urgent need for a core outcome dataset for studies of new onset atrial fibrillation to allow comparisons between different anti-arrhythmic strategies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121739.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and outcomes for new-onset atrial fibrillation in ICU patients: the CAFE scoping review and database analyses

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care.

OBJECTIVES

In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK.

RESULTS

Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior.

FUTURE WORK

Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic scoping review to summarise comparative evidence to inform NOAF management for patients admitted to ICU.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials register, additional WHO ICTRP trial databases, and NIHR Clinical Trials Gateway in March 2019. We included studies evaluating treatment or prevention strategies for NOAF or acute anticoagulation in general medical, surgical or mixed adult ICUs. We extracted study details, population characteristics, intervention and comparator(s), methods addressing confounding, results, and recommendations for future research onto study-specific forms.

RESULTS

Of 3,651 citations, 42 articles were eligible: 25 primary studies, 12 review articles and 5 surveys/opinion papers. Definitions of NOAF varied between NOAF lasting 30 s to NOAF lasting > 24 h. Only one comparative study investigated effects of anticoagulation. Evidence from small RCTs suggests calcium channel blockers (CCBs) result in slower rhythm control than beta blockers (1 study), and more cardiovascular instability than amiodarone (1 study). Evidence from 4 non-randomised studies suggests beta blocker and amiodarone therapy may be equivalent in respect to rhythm control. Beta blockers may be associated with improved survival compared to amiodarone, CCBs, and digoxin, though supporting evidence is subject to confounding. Currently, the limited evidence does not support therapeutic anticoagulation during ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

From the limited evidence available beta blockers or amiodarone may be superior to CCBs as first line therapy in undifferentiated patients in ICU. The little evidence available does not support therapeutic anticoagulation for NOAF whilst patients are critically ill. Consensus definitions for NOAF, rate and rhythm control are needed.

Managing new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: a systematic narrative review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to summarise the latest evidence on efficacy and safety of treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critical illness.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill adult patients who developed NOAF during admission.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were efficacy in achieving rate or rhythm control, as defined in each study. Secondary outcomes included mortality, stroke, bleeding and adverse events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge on 11 March 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting treatment efficacy for NOAF in critically ill patients. Data were extracted, and quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Of 1406 studies identified, 16 remained after full-text screening including two RCTs. Study quality was generally low due to a lack of randomisation, absence of blinding and small cohorts. Amiodarone was the most commonly studied agent (10 studies), followed by beta-blockers (8), calcium channel blockers (6) and magnesium (3). Rates of successful rhythm control using amiodarone varied from 30.0% to 95.2%, beta-blockers from 31.8% to 92.3%, calcium channel blockers from 30.0% to 87.1% and magnesium from 55.2% to 77.8%. Adverse effects of treatment were rarely reported (five studies).

CONCLUSION

The reported efficacy of beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, magnesium and amiodarone for achieving rhythm control was highly varied. As there is currently significant variation in how NOAF is managed in critically ill patients, we recommend future research focuses on comparing the efficacy and safety of amiodarone, beta-blockers and magnesium. Further research is needed to inform the decision surrounding anticoagulant use in this patient group.

Sympathetic overstimulation during critical illness: adverse effects of adrenergic stress

The term ''adrenergic'' originates from ''adrenaline'' and describes hormones or drugs whose effects are similar to those of epinephrine. Adrenergic stress is mediated by stimulation of adrenergic receptors and activation of post-receptor pathways. Critical illness is a potent stimulus of the sympathetic nervous system. It is undisputable that the adrenergic-driven ''fight-flight response'' is a physiologically meaningful reaction allowing humans to survive during evolution. However, in critical illness an overshooting stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system may well exceed in time and scope its beneficial effects. Comparable to the overwhelming immune response during sepsis, adrenergic stress in critical illness may get out of control and cause adverse effects. Several organ systems may be affected. The heart seems to be most susceptible to sympathetic overstimulation. Detrimental effects include impaired diastolic function, tachycardia and tachyarrhythmia, myocardial ischemia, stunning, apoptosis and necrosis. Adverse catecholamine effects have been observed in other organs such as the lungs (pulmonary edema, elevated pulmonary arterial pressures), the coagulation (hypercoagulability, thrombus formation), gastrointestinal (hypoperfusion, inhibition of peristalsis), endocrinologic (decreased prolactin, thyroid and growth hormone secretion) and immune systems (immunomodulation, stimulation of bacterial growth), and metabolism (increase in cell energy expenditure, hyperglycemia, catabolism, lipolysis, hyperlactatemia, electrolyte changes), bone marrow (anemia), and skeletal muscles (apoptosis). Potential therapeutic options to reduce excessive adrenergic stress comprise temperature and heart rate control, adequate use of sedative/analgesic drugs, and aiming for reasonable cardiovascular targets, adequate fluid therapy, use of levosimendan, hydrocortisone or supplementary arginine vasopressin.

Amiodarone modulates pharmacokinetics of low-dose methotrexate in rats

Clinical studies of low-dose methotrexate (LDMTX) pharmacokinetics document increased plasma concentrations of MTX after co-administration of the drug with amiodarone or macrolide antibiotics. As drug-drug interactions may increase the toxicity of LDMTX, a rat model was used to follow renal and biliary elimination of MTX during its constant-rate i.v. infusion and concomitant single bolus i.v. injections of amiodarone or azithromycin. The mean steady-state plasma concentration of 1.7+/-0.1 micromol/l was reached and the total clearance achieved 17.7+/-1.0 ml/min/kg. Administration of amiodarone decreased the biliary clearance of MTX to 73% of the control values (p<0.05). Correspondingly, the total clearance decreased to 72% and plasma MTX concentrations were augmented to 2.5+/-0.4 micromol/l (p<0.05). Amiodarone-treated rats exhibited a 3.3-fold decrease in the renal clearance (p<0.05) of conjugated bilirubin, which was associated with its increased plasma concentration. In contrast, azithromycin did not alter any of the MTX pharmacokinetic parameters. In conclusion, this is the first report describing the impairment of MTX hepatic elimination during co-administration with amiodarone. This study also provides new insight into acute amiodarone-induced hyperbilirubinaemia, where increased bilirubin production and decreased renal clearance may contribute to this effect. Importantly, azithromycin seems to be a safe co-medication during LDMTX therapy.

Efficacy of magnesium-amiodarone step-up scheme in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: a prospective observational study

Amiodarone is considered a first-choice antiarrhythmic drug in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). However, evidence supporting the use of this potentially toxic drug in critically ill patients is scarce. Magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) has shown to be effective for both rate and rhythm control, to act synergistically with antiarrhythmic drugs, and to prevent proarrhythmia. Treatment with MgSO4 may reduce the need for antiarrhythmic drugs such as amiodarone in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation. The efficacy of a new institutional protocol was evaluated. Patients were treated with a new institutional protocol for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients. An MgSO4 bolus (0.037 g/kg body weight in 15 minutes) was followed by continuous infusion (0.025 g/kg body weight/h). Intravenous amiodarone (loading dose 300 mg, followed by continuous infusion of 1200 mg/24 h) was given to those not responding to MgSO4 within 1 hour. Clinical response was defined as conversion to sinus rhythm or decrease in heart rate <110 beats/min. Sixteen of the 29 patients responded to MgSO4 monotherapy, whereas the addition of amiodarone was needed in 13 patients. Median (range) time until conversion to sinus rhythm after MgSO4 was 2 (1-45) hours. Median (range) conversion time in patients requiring amiodarone was 4 (2-78) hours, and median (range) conversion time in all patients was 3 (1-78) hours. The 24-hour conversion rate was 90%. Relapse atrial fibrillation was seen in 7 patients. The magnesium-amiodarone step-up scheme reduces the need for amiodarone, effectively converts new-onset atrial fibrillation into a sinus rhythm within 24 hours, and seems to be safe in critically ill patients.

Clinical review: treatment of new-onset atrial fibrillation in medical intensive care patients--a clinical framework

Atrial fibrillation occurs frequently in medical intensive care unit patients. Most intensivists tend to treat this rhythm disorder because they believe it is detrimental. Whether atrial fibrillation contributes to morbidity and/or mortality and whether atrial fibrillation is an epiphenomenon of severe disease, however, are not clear. As a consequence, it is unknown whether treatment of the arrhythmia affects the outcome. Furthermore, if treatment is deemed necessary, it is not known what the best treatment is. We developed a treatment protocol by searching for the best evidence. Because studies in medical intensive care unit patients are scarce, the evidence comes mainly from extrapolation of data derived from other patient groups. We propose a treatment strategy with magnesium infusion followed by amiodarone in case of failure. Although this strategy seems to be effective in both rhythm control and rate control, the mortality remained high. A randomised controlled trial in medical intensive care unit patients with placebo treatment in the control arm is therefore still defendable.