[New onset atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis]

Beyond the Beat: A Multifaceted Review of Atrial Fibrillation in Sepsis: Risk Factors, Management Strategies, and Economic Impact

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia in critically ill patients. The objective of this narrative review is to evaluate the characteristics of patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) because of sepsis, current management of NOAF in sepsis patients, special consideration in different populations that developed NOAF, health economic and quality of life of patients. We conducted a literature search on PubMed to find research related to NOAF, sepsis and critical illness. Nineteen studies were analyzed for risk factors and outcomes. The incidence rate ranges from 0.53% to 43.9% among these studies. There were numerous risk factors that had been reported from these articles. The most reported risk factors included advanced age, male sex, White race, and cardiovascular comorbidities. The management of septic patients is significantly challenging because of the unfavorable cardiovascular consequences and thromboembolic hazards associated with NOAF. There are comprehensive guidelines available for managing AF, but the effectiveness and safety of therapies in patients with sepsis are still uncertain. Various approaches for managing newly diagnosed AF have been explored. Sinus rhythm can be restored through either pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention or combination of both. In addition, thromboembolism is a complication that can occur in patients with AF and can have a negative impact on the prognosis of sepsis patients. The use of anticoagulation to prevent stroke after NOAF in sepsis patients is still controversial. Extensive prospective investigations are required to have a deeper understanding of the necessity for anticoagulation following NOAF in sepsis. Beside the treatment of NOAF, early detection of NOAF in sepsis plays a critical role. The prompt initiation of rhythm control medication following a clinical diagnosis of AF can enhance cardiovascular outcomes and reduce mortality in patients with AF and cardiovascular risk factors. Additionally, NOAF in the intensive care unit can prolong hospital stays, increasing hospitalization costs and burdening the hospital. Therefore, preventing and managing NOAF effectively not only benefit the patients but also the hospital in financial aspect. Lastly, to address the existing gaps in knowledge, future research should focus on developing machine learning models that can accurately anticipate risks, establish long-term follow-up protocols, and create complete monitoring systems. The focus is on early intervention and personalized approaches to improve outcomes and quality of life.

Evaluation of Amiodarone Administration in Patients with New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Septic Shock

Background and Objective: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is a common cardiac condition often observed in intensive care units. When amiodarone is used to treat this condition, either to maintain sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion or to control heart rate, complications can arise when a systemic pathology is present. Systemic pathology can result in a decrease in cardiac output and blood pressure, making the management of NOAF and septic shock challenging. Limited international research exists on the coexistence of NOAF and septic shock, making it difficult to determine the optimal course of treatment. While amiodarone is not the primary choice of antiarrhythmic drug for patients in septic shock, it may be considered for those with underlying cardiac issues. This paper aims to investigate the safety of administering amiodarone to patients with septic shock and explore whether another antiarrhythmic drug may be more effective, especially considering the cardiac conditions that patients may have. Materials and Methods: To write this article, we searched electronic databases for studies where authors used amiodarone and other medications for heart rate control or sinus rhythm restoration. Results: The studies reviewed in this work have shown that for the patients with septic shock and NOAF along with a pre-existing cardiac condition like a dilated left atrium, the use of amiodarone may provide greater benefits compared to other antiarrhythmic drugs. For patients with NOAF and septic shock without underlying heart disease, the initial use of propafenone has been found to be advantageous. However, a challenge arises when deciding between rhythm or heart rate control using various drug classes. Unfortunately, there is limited literature available on this specific scenario. Conclusions: NOAF is a frequent and potentially life-threatening complication occurring in one out of seven patients with sepsis, and its incidence is rising among patients with septic shock.

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting atrial fibrillation in patients with acute heart failure admitted to the ICU: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Acute heart failure is a serious condition. Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent arrhythmia in patients with acute heart failure. The occurrence of atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients worsens their prognosis and leads to a substantial increase in treatment costs. There is no tool that can effectively predict the onset of atrial fibrillation in patients with acute heart failure in the ICU currently.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the MIMIC-IV database of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute heart failure and who were initially sinus rhythm. Data on demographics, comorbidities, laboratory findings, vital signs, and treatment were extracted. The cohort was divided into a training set and a validation set. Variables selected by LASSO regression and multivariate logistic regression in the training set were used to develop a model for predicting the occurrence of atrial fibrillation in acute heart failure in the ICU. A nomogram was drawn and an online calculator was developed. The discrimination and calibration of the model was evaluated. The performance of the model was tested using the validation set.

RESULTS

This study included 2342 patients with acute heart failure, 646 of whom developed atrial fibrillation during their ICU stay. Using LASSO and multiple logistic regression, we selected six significant variables: age, prothrombin time, heart rate, use of vasoactive drugs within 24 h, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and Acute Physiology Score (APS) III. The C-index of the model was 0.700 (95% CI 0.672-0.727) and 0.682 (95% CI 0.639-0.725) in the training and validation sets, respectively. The calibration curves also performed well in both sets.

CONCLUSION

We developed a simple and effective model for predicting atrial fibrillation in patients with acute heart failure in the ICU.

Less Known but Clinically Relevant Comorbidities of Atrial Fibrillation: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The important risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AF) in the general population are not always equally important in specific and relatively prevalent diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The main goal of this narrative review is to focus attention on the presence and the relationship of AF with several important diseases, such as cancer or sepsis, in order to: 1) stimulate further research in the field, and 2) draw attention to this relationship and search for AF in clinical practice.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, Oxford Journals, Cambridge, SAGE, and Google Scholar for less-known comorbidities of AF. The search was limited to publications in English. No time limits were applied.

RESULTS

AF is widely represented in cardiovascular and other important diseases, even in those in which AF is rarely mentioned. In some specific clinical subsets of AF patients (e.g., patients with sepsis or cancer), the general risk factors for AF may not be so important. Patients with new-onset AF have a several-fold increase in relative risk of cancer, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

AF presence, prognosis, and optimal therapeutic approach are insufficiently recognised in several prevalent diseases, including life-threatening ones. There is a need for a better search for AF in PTE, pulmonary oedema, aortic dissection, sepsis, cancer and several gastrointestinal diseases. Improved AF detection would influence treatment and improve outcomes.

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.

The role of surgery type in postoperative atrial fibrillation and in-hospital mortality in esophageal cancer patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications of esophagectomy, which may extend the inpatient hospital stay. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly used in clinical practice; however, its POAF risk and short-term mortality remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the POAF risk and in-hospital mortality rate between patients receiving MIE and open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

Esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE from a retrospective cohort study were evaluated. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to assess the associations between esophagectomy (MIE vs. OE) and various outcomes (POAF, in-hospital mortality). Covariates included age, sex, body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor stage, surgery incision type, comorbidities, cardia conditions, peri-operative medication, and complications.

RESULTS

Of the 484 patients with esophageal cancer, 63 received MIE. A total of 53 patients developed POAF. Compared to patients receiving OE, MIE patients had 81% reduced odds of POAF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.185, 95% CI 0.039-0.887, P = 0.035). No statistically significant association was found for in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.709, 95% CI 0.114-4.409, P = 0.712).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE is associated with a lower risk of POAF, compared to traditional surgery. No significant short-term survival benefit was found for MIE.

[Atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis and non-cardiac infections]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is by far the most frequent cardiac arrhythmia associated with sepsis and infections. Newly occurring AF due to infections is associated with a deterioration of the prognosis for acute events and also for the long-term prognosis of patients. The risk of developing AF during an infection depends on general (e.g. age, structural heart disease) as well as infection-specific risk factors (e.g. sepsis severity, vasopressor treatment). Current guidelines do not make specific recommendations on the treatment of infection-associated AF and very few prospective data are available. The use of beta blockers appears to be safe for both prevention and frequency control of AF even in patients requiring catecholamines. For specific antiarrhythmic treatment, the use of class I antiarrhythmic agents is conceivable as an alternative to the predominantly used amiodarone. Newly occurring AF within infections has long been considered a specific entity with a low risk of recurrence, so that only a small proportion of patients received long-term effective anticoagulation; however, data from large retrospective studies suggest significantly higher recurrence rates. Therefore, the question of whether this group of patients benefits from long-term effective anticoagulation and extended monitoring of arrhythmia should be the subject of future research.