Effectiveness and costs of chemical versus electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Electric Cardioversion vs. Pharmacological with or without Electric Cardioversion for Stable New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus on the preference for pharmacological cardioversion (PC) in comparison to electric cardioversion (EC) for hemodynamically stable new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess PC (whether being followed by EC or not) vs. EC in achieving cardioversion for hemodynamically stable NOAF patients. PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched to include relevant studies until 7 March 2022. The primary outcome was the successful restoration of sinus rhythm, and secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) revisits with atrial fibrillation (AF), hospital readmission rate, length of hospital stay, and cardioversion-associated adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study were included. There was no difference in the rates of successful restoration to sinus rhythm (88.66% vs. 85.25%; OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.35-3.71; n = 868). There was no statistical difference across the two groups for ED revisits with AF, readmission rates, length of hospital stay, and cardioversion-associated adverse effects, with the exception of hypotension, whose incidence was lower in the EC group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.27: n = 727).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference in successful restoration of sinus rhythm with either modality among patients with hemodynamically stable NOAF.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Catheter Ablation and Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Using Discrete Event Simulation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 3 widely used atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from the perspectives of Chinese healthcare system: antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), ThermoCool SmartTouch guided by ablation index (STAI), and second-generation cryoballoon (CB2).

METHODS

A discrete event simulation (DES) model was implemented to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of AADs, STAI, and CB2. AF disease progression was explicitly modeled based on the Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial clinical study results. The base-case analysis assumed that patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) entered the model at the age of 55 years and had a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ( > 65 = 1 point, > 75 = 2 points), Diabetes, previous Stroke/transient ischemic attack (2 points)-Vascular disease (peripheral arterial disease, previous myocardial infarction, aortic atheroma), Age 65 to 74 years, and Sex category) score of 2 for males and 3 for females. Model parameter uncertainties were incorporated throughout the DES simulation with full probabilistic model parameterization.

RESULTS

The lifetime cost-effectiveness evaluations showed that patients treated with AADs gained an average of 4.98 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 9.63 life-years (LYs) at an average cost of US dollar (USD) 15 374. Patients treated with CB2 gained 5.92 QALYs and 10.74 LYs at an average cost of USD 26 811. The STAI group gained an average of 6.55 QALYs and 11.57 LYs at an average cost of USD 24 722. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was USD 5927 and USD 12 167 per QALY for STAI versus AADs and CB2 versus AADs, respectively. Assuming the willingness-to-pay threshold for China is USD 30 390 per QALY, both ablation treatments will be cost-effective compared with AADs for patients with PAF.

CONCLUSIONS

The DES model demonstrated that catheter ablations are more cost-effective than AADs for patients with PAF under the healthcare system in China. Among catheter ablation technologies, STAI provides better outcomes at lower costs.

DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in the emergency department: improving specialist protocols for the generalist

Background

Direct current cardioversion (DCCV) is a safe and effective treatment for recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) or flutter and when performed in the emergency department (ED), it can provide an excellent treatment option for patients as well as reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and healthcare costs. However, appropriate periprocedural anticoagulation is absolutely essential to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes, chiefly thromboembolic stroke. Our intention was for 100% of patients undergoing DCCV in the ED to receive appropriate periprocedural anticoagulation.

Method

We aimed to assess local practice with regards to periprocedural anticoagulation with a 1-year retrospective audit. We then undertook to deliver a multimodality educational programme in addition to producing new local protocols. Stakeholders were engaged within the cardiology, emergency medicine and governance departments as well as trust quality improvement team. This was undertaken across three PDSA cycles with prospective data collection on a rolling monthly basis with the use of real-time run charts, fed back to the ED. Teaching was delivered on a small group, electronic as well as departmental level, and a new protocol was created and delivered to guide clinicians in the management of patients with AF or flutter.

Results

While initial rates of periprocedural anticoagulation were suboptimal (with only 72% of eligible patients anticoagulated), following our programme of continuous monitoring and intervention, this steadily rose over the project timeline, achieving a high of 91% at the point of last data collection.

Conclusion

We should champion the high number of these procedures carried out in the ED setting, a pressured environment with multiple competing challenges. However, local protocols should reflect best-practice guidance regarding decision-making around selecting rate versus rhythm control strategies, appropriate use of medication and eligibility for anticoagulation as per individualised thrombotic risk. This will allow us to deliver effective interventions in a safe, patient-centred approach.

Pretreatment with intravenous amiodarone improves the efficacy of ibutilide treatment on cardioversion rate and maintenance time of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the pharmacological conversion of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) using amiodarone or/and ibutilide. Seventy-nine consecutive patients (48 males and 31 females; mean age, 64.6±11.2 years; range, 40-80 years) with non-valvular chronic AF lasting >7 days (range, 7-97 days) that were admitted to hospital for elective pharmacological cardioversion were randomly assigned to receive treatment with intravenous ibutilide (1 mg plus an additional 1 mg if required; n=39) or intravenous amiodarone (300 mg) plus intravenous ibutilide (1 mg; n=40). Success rates of cardioversion were 51.3% (20/39 patients) for ibutilide alone and 71.8% (28/39 patients) for amiodarone + ibutilide (P<0.05). A comparable increase in the QTc interval was observed in the two groups. It was observed that the co-administration of amiodarone and ibutilide was safer than ibutilide alone with regard to the risk of ventricular arrhythmia. Forty-eight patients of successful cardioversion were personally contacted for follow-up. The result indicated that the sinus rhythm maintenance time of the amiodarone + ibutilide group (4.36±2.44 months) was significantly higher than that of the ibutilide group (2.34±1.75 months; P<0.01). In conclusion, pretreatment with intravenous amiodarone + ibutilide for pharmacological cardioversion of persistent AF is considered to be more effective and safer than treatment with ibutilide alone.

Diagnosis and Therapy of Atrial Fibrillation: The Past, The Present and The Future

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common age-related cardiac arrhythmia. It is a progressive disease, which makes treatment difficult. The progression of AF is caused by the accumulation of damage in cardiomyocytes which makes the atria more vulnerable for AF. Especially structural remodeling and electrical remodeling, together called electropathology are sustainable in the atria and impair functional recovery to sinus rhythm after cardioversion. The exact electropathological mechanisms underlying persistence of AF are at present unknown. High resolution wavemapping studies in patients with different types of AF showed that longitudinal dissociation in conduction and epicardial breakthrough were the key elements of the substrate of longstanding persistent AF. A double layer of electrically dissociated waves propagating transmurally can explain persistence of AF (Double Layer Hypothesis) but the molecular mechanism is unknown. Derailment of proteasis -defined as the homeostasis in protein synthesis, folding, assembly, trafficking, guided by chaperones, and clearance by protein degradation systems - may play an important role in remodeling of the cardiomyocyte. As current therapies are not effective in attenuating AF progression, step-by-step analysis of this process, in order to identify potential targets for drug therapy, is essential. In addition, novel mapping approaches enabling assessment of the degree of electropathology in the individual patient are mandatory to develop patient-tailored therapies. The aims of this review are to 1) summarize current knowledge of the electrical and molecular mechanisms underlying AF 2) discuss the shortcomings of present diagnostic instruments and therapeutic options and 3) to present potential novel diagnostic tools and therapeutic targets.

Cost effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF), a supraventricular tachycardia disorder, is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia affecting 1-2 % of the general population. Prevalence is highly related to age, with every fourth individual older than 40 years old developing AF during his lifetime. Due to an aging population, the prevalence of AF is estimated to at least double within the next 50 years. This article presents AF-related cost-of-illness studies and reviews 19 cost-effectiveness studies and six cost studies published roughly over the past decade, which have compared different antiarrhythmic medications for AF. A systematic literature search for studies published between June 2000 and December 2011 was conducted in PubMed using the combination of keywords ((atrial fibrillation OR atrial flutter) AND cost). Current cost-effectiveness analyses of dronedarone and the pill-in-the-pocket strategy are subject to substantial uncertainties with regard to clinical benefit. Comparing rate control with rhythm control, a cost-effectiveness advantage for rate control was shown in several but not all studies. Within antiarrhythmic drug treatments, magnesium added onto ibutilide was shown to be more cost effective than ibutilide alone. Comparing chemical and electrical cardioversion, the latter was recommended as more cost effective from the healthcare system perspective in all reviewed studies but one. Catheter ablation appeared more cost effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in the medium to long run after 3.2-63.9 years. Admissions to hospital, inpatient care and interventional procedures as well as mortality benefit are key drivers for the cost effectiveness of AF medications. No clear cost-effectiveness advantage emerged for one specific antiarrhythmic drug from the studies that compared antiarrhythmic agents. Rate control as well as catheter ablation appear more cost effective than rhythm control in the treatment of AF. Rate control treatment also seems more cost effective than electrical cardioversion in AF patients.

The costs of care in atrial fibrillation and the effect of treatment modalities in Germany

OBJECTIVE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasing burden on health-care systems because of an aging population. This study aimed to estimate health-care resource use and costs of treating AF in Germany.

METHOD

A 6-month multicenter prospective observational cohort study with additional 3-month retrospective clinical data collection was performed in physician practices. AF-related resource use was documented by 3-month retrospective and 6-month prospective clinical data from physician charts and prospectively by patient questionnaires at 3 and 6 months. Cost calculation was from the health-care payer perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 361 patients (mean age 71 +/- 9 years, 61% male) were recruited from 45 physician practices. Of 311 (86.1%) patients with complete data, 75% had persistent AF; oral anticoagulation and/or aspirin were prescribed in 98%. A rhythm-control strategy was applied in 27%, rate control in 58%, and 15% received neither antiarrhythmic medication nor cardioversion. A higher proportion of rhythm-control patients had paroxysmal AF (P < 0.001). Mean annual AF-related per-patient cost was 827 Euro +/- 1476 (median 386 Euro). 50% of total costs were incurred by 11% of patients, driven by AF-related hospitalizations (44%). Antiarrhythmics and stroke prophylaxis accounted for 20% and 15% of expenditures, respectively. Mean annualized costs were higher for rhythm-control patients than for rate-control patients or those without antiarrhythmic treatment (1572 vs. 780 vs. 544 Euro, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This evaluation provides an overview of current treatment modalities and cost of AF management in Germany. Efforts to reduce the economic burden of AF should focus on avoidance of AF hospital admissions and optimization of stroke prevention and rhythm control.

Propafenone added to ibutilide increases conversion rates of persistent atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological conversion of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) with a combined propafenone plus ibutilide regimen.

METHODS AND RESULTS

100 consecutive patients (66 men, mean (SD) age 65 (10) years) with persistent AF (mean (SD) duration 99 (92) days) admitted for elective pharmacological cardioversion were randomly assigned to treatment with either intravenous ibutilide (1 mg plus an additional 1 mg, if required; n = 51) or oral propafenone (600 mg) plus intravenous ibutilide at the same dose (n = 49). Success rates were 41.1% (21 of 51 patients) for ibutilide alone and 71.4% (35 of 49 patients) for propafenone plus ibutilide (p = 0.0044). However, cardioversion occurred earlier in the ibutilide alone group (55 (20) minutes) compared with the combination group (81 (32) minutes, p = 0.0019). A comparable increase in the QTc interval was observed in both groups but one case of sustained torsade de pointes, requiring electrical cardioversion, was observed in the propafenone plus ibutilide group. No other complications were noted during the hospitalisation period.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent administration of propafenone plus ibutilide for pharmacological cardioversion of persistent AF is safe and more effective than ibutilide alone.

Pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: current management and treatment options

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of arrhythmia, carrying high social costs. It is usually first seen by general practitioners or in emergency departments. Despite the availability of consensus guidelines, considerable variations exist in treatment practice, especially outside specialised cardiological settings. Cardioversion to sinus rhythm aims to: (i) restore the atrial contribution to ventricular filling/output; (ii) regularise ventricular rate; and (iii) interrupt atrial remodelling. Cardioversion always requires careful assessment of potential proarrhythmic and thromboembolic risks, and this translates into the need to personalise treatment decisions. Among the many clinical variables that affect strategy selection, time from onset is crucial. In selected patients, pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset AF can be a safely used, feasible and effective approach, even in internal medicine and emergency departments. In most cases of recent-onset AF, pharmacological cardioversion provides an important--and probably more cost effective--alternative to electrical cardioversion, which can then be employed as a second-line therapy for nonresponders. Class IC agents (flecainide or propafenone), which can be safely used in hospitalised patients with recent-onset AF without left ventricular dysfunction, can provide rapid conversion to sinus rhythm after either intravenous administration or oral loading. Although intravenous amiodarone requires longer conversion times, it is still the standard treatment for patients with heart failure. Ibutilide also provides good conversion rates and could be used for AF patients with left ventricular dysfunction (were it not for high costs). For long-lasting AF most pharmacological treatments have only limited efficacy and electrical cardioversion remains the gold standard in this setting. However, a widely used strategy involves pretreatment with amiodarone in the weeks before planned electrical cardioversion: this provides optimal prophylaxis and can sometimes even restore sinus rhythm. Dofetilide may also be capable of restoring sinus rhythm in up to 25-30% of patients and can be used in patients with heart failure. The potential risk of proarrhythmia increases the need for careful therapeutic decision making and management of pharmacological cardioversion. The results of recent trials (AFFIRM [Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management] and RACE [Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation]) on rate versus rhythm control strategies in the long term have led to a generalised shift in interest towards rate control. Although carefully designed studies are required to better define the role of pharmacological rhythm control in specific AF settings, this alternative option remains a recommendable strategy for many patients, especially those in acute care.