Amiodarone versus diltiazem for rate control in critically ill patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias

Amiodarone Therapy: Updated Practical Insights

Amiodarone, a bi-iodinated benzofuran derivative, is among the most commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs due to its high level of effectiveness. Though initially categorized as a class III agent, amiodarone exhibits antiarrhythmic properties across all four classes of antiarrhythmic drugs. Amiodarone is highly effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation while also playing a crucial role in preventing a range of ventricular arrhythmias. Amiodarone has a complex pharmacokinetic profile, characterized by a large volume of distribution and a long half-life, which can range from several weeks to months, resulting in prolonged effects even after discontinuation. Side effects may include thyroid dysfunction, pulmonary fibrosis, and hepatic injury, necessitating regular follow-ups. Additionally, amiodarone interacts with several drugs, including anticoagulants, which must be managed to prevent adverse effects. Therefore, a deep understanding of both oral and intravenous formulations, as well as proper dosage adjustments, is essential. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive and updated review on amiodarone's indications, contraindications, recommended dosages, drug interactions, side effects, and monitoring protocols.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: New Assessment of an Old Problem

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF)-specifically, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)-often coexist, and each contributes to the propagation of the other. This relationship extends from the mechanistic and physiological to clinical syndromes, quality of life, and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The risk factors for AF and HF overlap and create a critical opportunity to prevent adverse outcomes among patients at greatest risk for either condition. Increasing recognition of the linkages between AF and HF have led to widespread interest in designing diagnostic, predictive, and interventional strategies targeting all aspects of disease, from identifying genetic predisposition to addressing social determinants of health. Advances across this spectrum culminated in updated multisociety guidelines for management of AF, which includes specific consideration of comorbid AF and HF. This review expands on these guidelines by further highlighting relevant clinical trial findings and providing additional context for the evolving recommendations for management in this important and growing population.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

The role of beta-blocker drugs in critically ill patients: a SIAARTI expert consensus statement

BACKGROUND

The role of β-blockers in the critically ill has been studied, and data on the protective effects of these drugs on critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature over the last two decades. However, consensus and guidelines by scientific societies on the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients are still lacking. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient's care process.

METHODS

The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected a panel of experts and asked them to define key aspects underlying the use of β-blockers in critically ill adult patients. The methodology followed by the experts during this process was in line with principles of modified Delphi and RAND-UCLA methods. The experts developed statements and supportive rationales in the form of informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to blind votes for consensus.

RESULTS

The literature search suggests that adrenergic stress and increased heart rate in critically ill patients are associated with organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Heart rate control thus seems to be critical in the management of the critically ill patient, requiring careful clinical evaluation aimed at both the differential diagnosis to treat secondary tachycardia and the treatment of rhythm disturbance. In addition, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of persistent tachycardia may be considered in patients with septic shock once hypovolemia has been ruled out. Intravenous application should be the preferred route of administration.

CONCLUSION

β-blockers protective effects in critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature. Their use in the acute treatment of increased heart rate requires understanding of the pathophysiology and careful differential diagnosis, as all causes of tachycardia should be ruled out and addressed first.

Safety and Efficacy of Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Acute Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation with Rapid Ventricular Response and Comorbid Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The use of nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCCBs) to achieve rate control in atrial fibrillation with the rapid ventricular rate (AF RVR) is not recommended in patients with comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to the concern for further blunting of contractility. However, these recommendations are extrapolated from data examining chronic NDCCB use in HFrEF patients, and comorbid AF was not analyzed. These recommendations also do not cite the hemodynamic effects or clinical outcomes of NDCCBs for acute rate control in HFrEF patients with AF RVR. It is our goal to open the discussion concerning the hemodynamic effects and safety profile of NDCCBs for acute rate control in this specific patient population. In the acute setting of AF RVR and HFrEF, there is a paucity of low-quality data on the safety and hemodynamic effects of NDCCBs, with mixed results. There has not been a clear signal toward adverse outcomes with NDCCBs, particularly for diltiazem. Data in this scenario is similarly limited for beta blockers, which provide the additional hemodynamic effect of the neurohormonal blockade, which provides a long-term mortality benefit to HFrEF patients. We support the cautious use of beta blockers as first-line therapy in clinical settings where an acute rate control strategy for AF RVR is warranted. We also support diltiazem as a reasonable second-line option, though the relative paucity of data calls for further research to validate this conclusion. Verapamil in this setting should be avoided until more data are available.

Comparative effectiveness of common treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation within the ICU: Accounting for physiological status

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is common in patients on an intensive care unit (ICU). Evidence guiding treatments is limited, though recent reports suggest beta blocker (BB) therapy is associated with reduced mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre cohort study of adult patients admitted to 3 ICUs in the UK and 5 ICUs in the USA. We analysed the haemodynamic changes associated with NOAF. We analysed rate control, rhythm control, and hospital mortality associated with common NOAF treatments. We balanced admission and post-NOAF, pre-treatment covariates across treatment groups.

RESULTS

NOAF was followed by a systolic blood pressure reduction of 5 mmHg (p < 0.001). After adjustment, digoxin therapy was associated with inferior rate control versus amiodarone (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.56, [95% CI 0.34-0.92]). Calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy was associated with inferior rhythm control versus amiodarone (aHR 0.59 (0.37-0.92). No difference was detected between BBs and amiodarone in rate control (aHR 1.15 [0.91-1.46]), rhythm control (aHR 0.85, [0.69-1.05]), or hospital mortality (aHR 1.03 [0.53-2.03]).

CONCLUSIONS

NOAF in ICU patients is followed by decreases in blood pressure. BBs and amiodarone are associated with similar cardiovascular control and appear superior to digoxin and CCBs. Accounting for key confounders removes previously reported mortality benefits associated with BB treatment.

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.

Singapore Advanced Cardiac Life Support Guidelines 2021

Advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) emphasises the use of advanced airway management and ventilation, circulatory support and the appropriate use of drugs in resuscitation, as well as the identification of reversible causes of cardiac arrest. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and organ donation, as well as special circumstances including drowning, pulmonary embolism and pregnancy are addressed. Resuscitation does not end with ACLS but must continue in post-resuscitation care. ACLS also covers the recognition and management of unstable pre-arrest tachy- and bradydysrhythmias that may deteriorate further.

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.

Analysis of the ESC/EACTS 2020 Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines With Perioperative Implications

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia worldwide, with an individual lifetime risk of approximately 37% in the United States. Broadly defined as a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia with disorganized atrial activation, AF results in an increased risk of stroke, heart failure, valvular heart disease, and impaired quality of life, and confers a significant burden on the health of individuals and society. AF in the perioperative setting is common and a significant source of perioperative morbidity and mortality worldwide. The latest iteration of the European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines published in 2020 provide the clinician a valuable road map for the management of this arrythmia. This expert review will comprehensively analyze the 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines and provide perioperative management tools for the clinician.

Rhythm-control therapy for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: A post hoc analysis from the prospective multicenter observational AFTER-ICU study

BACKGROUND

Sustained new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in the intensive care unit has been reported to be associated with poor outcomes. However, in critical illness, whether rhythm-control therapy can achieve sinus rhythm (SR) restoration is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of rhythm-control therapy on SR restoration for new-onset AF in critically ill patients.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter observational study involving 32 Japan intensive care units compared patients with and without rhythm-control therapy for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and conducted a multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis including rhythm-control therapy as a time-varying covariate for SR restoration.

RESULTS

Of 423 new-onset AF patients, 178 patients (42%) underwent rhythm-control therapy. Among those patients, 131 (31%) underwent rhythm-control therapy within 6 h after AF onset. Magnesium sulphate was the most frequently used rhythm-control drug. The Cox proportional hazards model for SR restoration showed that rhythm-control therapy had a significant positive association with SR restoration (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.46; 95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.85). However, the rhythm-control group had numerically higher hospital mortality than the non-rhythm-control group (31% vs. 23%, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Rhythm-control therapy for new-onset AF in critically ill patients was associated with SR restoration. However, patients with rhythm-control therapy had poorer prognosis, possibly due to selection bias. These findings may provide important insight for the design and feasibility of interventional studies assessing rhythm-control therapy in new-onset AF.

Amiodarone is associated with increased short-term mortality in elderly atrial fibrillation patients with preserved ejection fraction

PURPOSE

Amiodarone is commonly used in atrial fibrillation (AF). Long-term use of amiodarone is associated with significant toxicities especially in elderly patients. However, in the short term after hospitalization of AF, it remains uncertain whether the use of amiodarone will increase mortality. We aim to investigate whether Amiodarone affects short-term mortality in elderly patients after hospitalization for atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study including patients (Age > = 60 years old) who were hospitalized between 07/01/2004 and 06/30/2019 with primary diagnosis of AF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > = 50%. Patients who were prescribed amiodarone during hospitalization but not before hospitalization are classified into Amiodarone group (341 patients). Patients who were not prescribed amiodarone are classified into non-amiodarone group (2171 patients). Propensity score matching was performed with 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching of Amiodarone group and Non-amiodarone group based on baseline variables. Univariate and Multivariate logistic regression were used to calculate the odds ratio of amiodarone use on in-hospital mortality, and multivariate cox regression was adopted to calculate the hazard ratio of amiodarone use on 100-day mortality.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were well matched in both groups. Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression showed amiodarone group had higher in-hospital mortality (OR 10.27, p = 0.0268; 16.50, p = 0.0171) than non-amiodarone group and multivariate Cox regression suggested increased 100-day all-cause mortality (HR 2.34, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone use in elderly patients with preserved ejection fraction is associated with increased in-hospital and 100-day all-cause mortality after hospitalization for AF.

COVID-19 associated atrial fibrillation: Incidence, putative mechanisms and potential clinical implications

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel, highly transmittable and severe strain disease, which has rapidly spread worldwide. Despite epidemiological evidence linking COVID-19 with cardiovascular diseases, little is known about whether and how COVID-19 influences atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent arrhythmia in clinical practice. Here, we review the available evidence for prevalence and incidence of AF in patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and discuss disease management approaches and potential treatment options for COVID-19 infected AF patients.

Sepsis With Preexisting Heart Failure: Management of Confounding Clinical Features

Preexisting heart failure (HF) in patients with sepsis is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Core sepsis management includes aggressive volume resuscitation followed by vasopressors (and potentially inotropes) if fluid is inadequate to restore perfusion; however, large fluid boluses and vasoactive agents are concerning amid the cardiac dysfunction of HF. This review summarizes evidence regarding the influence of HF on sepsis clinical outcomes, pathophysiologic concerns, resuscitation targets, hemodynamic interventions, and adjunct management (ie, antiarrhythmics, positive pressure ventilatory support, and renal replacement therapy) in patients with sepsis and preexisting HF. Patients with sepsis and preexisting HF receive less fluid during resuscitation; however, evidence suggests traditional fluid resuscitation targets do not increase the risk of adverse events in HF patients with sepsis and likely improve outcomes. Norepinephrine remains the most well-supported vasopressor for patients with sepsis with preexisting HF, while dopamine may induce more cardiac adverse events. Dobutamine should be used cautiously given its generally detrimental effects but may have an application when combined with norepinephrine in patients with low cardiac output. Management of chronic HF medications warrants careful consideration for continuation or discontinuation upon development of sepsis, and β-blockers may be appropriate to continue in the absence of acute hemodynamic decompensation. Optimal management of atrial fibrillation may include β-blockers after acute hemodynamic stabilization as they have also shown independent benefits in sepsis. Positive pressure ventilatory support and renal replacement must be carefully monitored for effects on cardiac function when HF is present.

Pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: review of current knowledge and future directions

Introduction: Both heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) independently cause significant morbidity and mortality. The two conditions commonly coexist and AF in the setting of HFrEF is associated with worse mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life compared to HFrEF without AF. Despite the large burden of these conditions, there is no clear optimal management strategy for when they occur together.Areas covered: This review focuses on the pharmacological management of AF in HFrEF. Studies were identified through PubMed search of relevant keywords. The authors review key clinical trials that have influenced management strategies and guidelines. The authors focus on the classes of drugs used to treat AF for both rate and rhythm control strategies including beta-blockers, digoxin, amiodarone, and dofetilide. Additionally, the authors discuss select non-antiarrhythmic medications that affect AF in HFrEF. The authors highlight the strengths and weakness of the data supporting the use of these medications and suggest future directions.Expert opinion: The pharmacological treatment of AF in HFrEF will need further refinement alongside the emerging role of catheter ablation. Novel HF medications and antiarrhythmics offer new tools to prevent the development of AF, as well as for rate and rhythm control strategies.

[Emergency management of regular supraventricular tachycardias]

With an estimated incidence of approximated 36 per 100,000 persons per year, paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardias form a relevant clinical set of problems. They occur based on different substrates with varied symptoms and electrocardiographic items. The 12-channel ECG depicts the background to determine the underlying pathomechanism. The sinus node and all components of the conduction system such as atrial myocardium can be involved. Vagal maneuvers, several pharmacological strategies and various ablation technology are available for acute therapy.

Evaluation of Amiodarone Use for New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically Ill Patients With Septic Shock

Objective: To describe the use of amiodarone in critically ill, septic shock patients experiencing new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) during the acute resuscitative phase of septic shock. Methods: Single-center, retrospective review of adult medical or surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock and NOAF. All patients received amiodarone for NOAF during the acute resuscitative phase of septic shock. The cohort was analyzed via descriptive statistics. Associations between amiodarone exposure and clinical outcomes were analyzed via a Cox proportional-hazards model. An a priori defined sensitivity analysis of hospital survivors was also employed. Main Results: A total of 239 patients were included in the analysis. Patients had a median baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index of 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-6) and were acutely ill with a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 18 (IQR: 13-22) and an incidence of mechanical ventilation of 85%. In-hospital mortality was 56% with median ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) of 9 and 15 days, respectively. Included patients received a median of 2760 (IQR: 1110-6415) mg of intravenous (IV) amiodarone during their ICU stay. Receipt of more than or equal to 2700 mg of amiodarone was identified as an independent factor associated with longer ICU LOS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.28). In a sensitivity analysis of hospital survivors (n = 105), receipt of more than or equal to 2700 mg of amiodarone remained independently associated with longer ICU LOS (HR: 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05-2.58). Conclusions: Exposure to more than or equal to 2700 mg of amiodarone in the setting of NOAF and septic shock is positively correlated with longer ICU LOS. Identifying opportunities to limit amiodarone exposure and address/resolve potential precipitating causes of NOAF in this clinical scenario may reduce the morbidity associated with septic shock.

Safety and Efficacy of Prehospital Diltiazem for Atrial Fibrillation with Rapid Ventricular Response

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AFIB) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is a common tachydysrhythmia encountered by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Current guidelines suggest rate control in stable, symptomatic patients.

PROBLEM

Little is known about the safety or efficacy of rate-controlling medications given by prehospital providers. This study assessed a protocol for prehospital administration of diltiazem in the setting of AFIB with RVR for provider protocol compliance, patient clinical improvement, and associated adverse events.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cohort study of patients who were administered diltiazem by providers in the Orange County EMS System (Florida USA) over a two-year period. The protocol directed a 0.25mg/kg dose of diltiazem (maximum of 20mg) for stable, symptomatic patients in AFIB with RVR at a rate of &gt;150 beats per minute (bpm) with a narrow complex. Data collected included patient characteristics, vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm before and after diltiazem, and need for rescue or additional medications. Adverse events were defined as systolic blood pressure &lt;90mmHg or administration of intravenous fluid after diltiazem administration. Clinical improvement was defined as a heart rate decreased by 20% or less than 100bmp. Original prehospital ECG rhythm interpretations were compared to physician interpretations performed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 197 patients received diltiazem, with 131 adhering to the protocol. The initial rhythm was AFIB with RVR in 93% of the patients (five percent atrial flutter, two percent supraventricular tachycardia, and one percent sinus tachycardia). The agreement between prehospital and physician rhythm interpretation was 92%, with a Kappa value of 0.454 (P &lt;.001). Overall, there were 22 (11%) adverse events, and 112 (57%) patients showed clinical improvement. When diltiazem was given outside of the existing protocol, the patients had higher rates of adverse events (18% versus eight percent; P = .033). Patients who received diltiazem in adherence with protocols were more likely to show clinical improvement (63% versus 46%; P = .031).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that prehospital diltiazem administration for AFIB with RVR is safe and effective when strict protocols are followed.Rodriguez A, Hunter CL, Premuroso C, Silvestri S, Stone A, Miller S, Zuver C, Papa L. Safety and efficacy of prehospital diltiazem for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(3):297-302.

Clinical effects of intravenous to oral amiodarone transition strategies in critically ill adult patients

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

There is limited guidance on how to transition critically ill patients from intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) amiodarone. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of IV and PO amiodarone overlap on short-term tachyarrhythmia recurrence and adverse hemodynamic outcomes in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center analysis of critically ill adults who were treated with IV amiodarone for a supraventricular arrhythmia with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) and transitioned to PO amiodarone while inpatient. Patients were excluded if rate control was not achieved prior to the PO transition. Receipt of concomitant IV and PO therapy for ≤2 hours was considered no overlap (NOV) and >2 hours was considered overlap (OV). Tachyarrhythmia recurrence and adverse hemodynamic events were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients (45 NOV, 45 OV) were included in the analysis. The median overlap duration was 0.1 (-1.3 to 1.2) hours in the NOV arm and 4 (2.6-6.1) hours in the OV arm. Recurrence of RVR occurred in 9 (20%) patients in each arm (P = 1.0). The median time from IV discontinuation to return of tachyarrhythmia was 10.5 hours. There were no significant differences in amiodarone dosing, electrolyte abnormalities, volume status or concomitant cardiac medications at the time of IV to PO transition. Hypotension occurred in 13% and 20% (P = 0.369) and bradycardia in 9% and 13% (P = 0.502) of patients in the NOV and OV arms, respectively.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Providing IV and PO overlap of amiodarone for a median of 4 hours did not decrease the rate of early tachyarrhythmia recurrence. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the impact of alternative amiodarone dosing strategies on breakthrough tachyarrhythmia.

Frequency of "on-label" use of intravenous diltiazem for rate control in patients with acute-onset atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

Purpose

The study was designed to characterize "on-label" use of i.v. diltiazem in patients with acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF).

Methods

An IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, observational design was used. Eligible patients had acute AFF with heart rate >120 bpm and received i.v. diltiazem from June 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014. The primary outcome was frequency of on-label use of i.v. diltiazem, defined as use of at least one FDA-approved weight-based bolus dose followed by an infusion, if appropriate, in the absence of contraindications.

Results

A total of 300 patients were screened; 97 patients were included for analysis. I.V. diltiazem was used on-label in only 14 patients (14%). Of the 96 patients who received an initial diltiazem bolus injection, the median dose was significantly higher in patients for whom the diltiazem dose was on-label, as follows: 17.5 mg (interquartile range [IQR]), 10-20 mg vs. 10.0 mg (IQR, 10-20 mg), p < 0.02). Twenty-nine patients (35%) in the off-label group had a therapeutic response to diltiazem alone compared with 8 patients (57%) in the on-label group (p = 0.11). More patients treated with off-label diltiazem bolus injection required additional rate control medications (41% vs. 7%, p < 0.04).

Conclusion

In most patients, i.v. diltiazem was not used in accordance with FDA labeling. For most, i.v. diltiazem doses were lower than recommended and many of these patients required additional rate control medications to achieve a therapeutic response.

KSHF Guidelines for the Management of Acute Heart Failure: Part II. Treatment of Acute Heart Failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is on the rise due to the aging of society. Furthermore, the continuous progress and widespread adoption of screening and diagnostic strategies have led to an increase in the detection rate of HF, effectively increasing the number of patients requiring monitoring and treatment. Because HF is associated with substantial rates of mortality and morbidity, as well as high socioeconomic burden, there is an increasing need for developing specific guidelines for HF management. The Korean guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic HF were introduced in March 2016. However, chronic and acute HF represent distinct disease entities. Here, we introduce the Korean guidelines for the management of acute HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Part II of this guideline covers the treatment of acute HF.

2018 Korean Guideline of Atrial Fibrillation Management

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in the general population. The Korean Heart Rhythm Society organized a Korean AF Management Guideline Committee and analyzed all available studies regarding the management of AF, including studies on Korean patients. This guideline is based on recent data of the Korean population and the recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society. Expert consensus or guidelines for the optimal management of Korean patients with AF were achieved after a systematic review with intensive discussion. This article provides general principles for appropriate risk stratification and selection of anticoagulation therapy in Korean patients with AF. This guideline deals with optimal stroke prevention, screening, rate and rhythm control, risk factor management, and integrated management of AF.

Management of Atrial Fibrillation with Rapid Ventricular Response in the Intensive Care Unit: A Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Record Data

PURPOSE

Atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is common during critical illness. In this study, we explore the comparative effectiveness of three commonly used drugs (metoprolol, diltiazem, and amiodarone) in the management of atrial fibrillation with RVR in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Data pertaining to the first ICU admission were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Patients who received one of the above pharmacologic agents while their heart rate was > 110 bpm and had atrial fibrillation documented in the clinical chart were included. Propensity score weighting using a generalized boosted model was used to compare medication failure rates (second agent prior to termination of RVR). Secondary outcomes included time to control, control within 4 h, and mortality.

RESULTS

One thousand six hundred forty-six patients were included: 736 received metoprolol, 292 received diltiazem, and 618 received amiodarone. Compared with those who received metoprolol, failure rates were higher amongst those who received amiodarone (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.87, P = 0.03) and there was a trend towards increased failure rates in patients who received diltiazem (OR 1.35, CI 0.89-2.07, P = 0.16). Amongst patients who received a single agent, patients who received diltiazem were less likely to be controlled at 4-h than those who received metoprolol (OR 0.64, CI 0.43-097, P = 0.03). Initial agent was not associated with in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, metoprolol was the most commonly used agent for atrial fibrillation with RVR. Metoprolol had a lower failure rate than amiodarone and was superior to diltiazem in achieving rate control at 4 h.

Atrial Fibrillation in the ICU

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in the ICU. Preexisting AF is highly prevalent among older patients with chronic conditions who are at risk for critical illness, whereas new-onset AF can be triggered by accelerated atrial remodeling and arrhythmogenic triggers encountered during critical illness. The acute loss of atrial systole and onset of rapid ventricular rates that characterize new-onset AF often lead to decreased cardiac output and hemodynamic compromise. Thus, new-onset AF is both a marker of disease severity as well as a likely contributor to poor outcomes, similar to other manifestations of organ dysfunction during critical illness. Evaluating immediate hemodynamic effects of new-onset AF during critical illness is an important component of rapid clinical assessment aimed at identifying patients in need of urgent direct current cardioversion, treatment of reversible inciting factors, and identification of patients who may benefit from pharmacologic rate or rhythm control. In addition to acute hemodynamic effects, new-onset AF during critical illness is associated with both short- and long-term increases in the risk of stroke, heart failure, and death, with AF recurrence rates of approximately 50% within 1 year following hospital discharge. In the absence of a strong evidence base, there is substantial practice variation in the choice of strategies for management of new-onset AF during critical illness. We describe acute and long-term evaluation and management strategies based on current evidence and propose future avenues of investigation to fill large knowledge gaps in the management of patients with AF during critical illness.

Modeling of Amiodarone Effect on Heart Rate Control in Critically Ill Patients with Atrial Tachyarrhythmias

AIMS

Amiodarone is the gold-standard medication to control heart rate in critically ill patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs); however, effective doses and covariates influencing its efficacy remain unknown. We therefore performed pharmacodynamic modeling of heart rate reduction induced by amiodarone in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This observational study included 80 consecutive severely ill patients receiving amiodarone to treat ATs. A total of 1348 time-heart rate observations with 361 amiodarone dose administrations were analyzed during a period of up to 6 days after hospital treatment initiation using a nonlinear mixed-effect model. Pretreatment with amiodarone before intensive care administration, paroxysmal versus persistent AT, catecholamine infusion, and fluid and magnesium loading were among the covariates assessed in the model. In case of paroxysmal AT in a patient not pretreated with amiodarone, a 300 mg intravenous loading dose combined with an 800 mg oral dose on the first day, followed by 800 mg/day orally for 4 days was effective in achieving a heart rate between 80 and 115 bpm within the first day, and to maintain it during the next 4 days. Corresponding doses were twice as high in patients with persistent AT. Use of intravenous magnesium (p < 0.02) and fluid loading (p < 0.02) was associated with an earlier and greater heart rate decrease, while use of dobutamine had an opposite influence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with AT, the dose of amiodarone required to control heart rate is influenced by the type of AT and by other easily measurable conditions which may allow better individualization of amiodarone dosing.

Current practice in the management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: a UK-wide survey

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in critically ill patients. Although evidence base and expert consensus opinion for management have been summarised in several international guidelines, no specific considerations for critically ill patients have been included. We aimed to establish current practice of management of critically ill patients with new-onset AF.

METHODS

We designed a short user-friendly online questionnaire. All members of the Intensive Care Society were invited via email containing a link to the questionnaire, which comprised 21 questions. The online survey was conducted between November 2016 and December 2016.

RESULTS

The response rate was 397/3152 (12.6%). The majority of respondents (81.1%) worked in mixed Intensive Care Units and were consultants (71.8%). Most respondents (39.5%) would start intervention on patients with fast new-onset AF and stable blood pressure at a heart rate between 120 and 139 beats/min. However, 34.8% of participants would treat all patients who developed new-onset fast AF. Amiodarone and beta-blockers (80.9% and 11.6% of answers) were the most commonly used anti-arrhythmics. A total of 63.8% of respondents do not regularly anti-coagulate critically ill patients with new-onset fast AF, while 30.8% anti-coagulate within 72 hours. A total of 68.0% of survey respondents do not routinely use stroke risk scores in critically ill patients with new-onset AF. A total of 85.4% of participants would consider taking part in a clinical trial investigating treatment of new-onset fast AF in the critically ill.

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest a considerable disparity between contemporary practice of management of new-onset AF in critical illness and treatment recommendations for the general patient population suffering from AF, particularly with regard to anti-arrhythmics and anti-coagulation used. Amongst intensivists, there is a substantial interest in research for management of new-onset AF in critically ill patients.

Effectiveness of heart rate control on hemodynamics in critically ill patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias managed by amiodarone

Atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) are common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and might contribute to hemodynamic instability if heart rate (HR) is persistently too rapid. We aimed to assess if HR control below 115 or 130bpm with amiodarone improves hemodynamics in ICU patients with AT. This observational study included 73 ICU patients with disabling AT receiving amiodarone for HR control. A total of 525 changes (mainly within 4-8h) in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and 167 changes in plasma lactate in response to HR variations above 115 or 130bpm were analyzed. Epinephrine, sedative drugs, fluid loading, use of diuretics, continuous renal replacement therapy and amiodarone dosing were among covariables assessed. Univariable analysis showed that HR variations above 115bpm were poorly correlated to change in MAP (r=0.11, p<0.01). Multivariable analysis showed that changes in MAP were still positively associated to HR variation (p<0.05) and to initiation or termination of epinephrine (p<0.05) or sedatives infusions (p<0.05). Changes in plasma lactate did not correlate to HR variations above 115bpm. When considering 130 bpm as a threshold, HR variations were not associated to changes in MAP or to changes in plasma lactate. Amiodarone dose was associated to HR decrease but not to MAP or plasma lactate increase. In ICU patients with AT, strict HR control below 115bpm or 130bpm with amiodarone does not improve hemodynamics. A prospective randomized trial assessing strict versus lenient HR control in this setting is needed.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation: An unknown relationship

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is independently associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). Decreased oxygenation, hypercapnia, pulmonary hypertension, diastolic dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammation, changes in atrial size by altered respiratory physiology, increased arrhythmogenicity from nonpulmonary vein foci commonly located in the right atrium, and respiratory drugs have been implicated in the pathogenesis of AF in COPD. The understanding of the relationship between COPD and AF is of particular importance, as the presence of the arrhythmia has significant impact on mortality, especially in COPD exacerbations. On the other hand, COPD in AF is associated with AF progression, success of cardioversion, recurrence of AF after catheter ablation, and increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Treatment of the underlying pulmonary disease and correction of hypoxia and acid-base imbalance represents first-line therapy for COPD patients who develop AF. Cardioselective β-blockers are safe and can be routinely used in COPD. In addition, AF ablation was proved to be efficient and safe, and improves quality of life in these patients. This review presents the association between COPD and AF, describes the pathophysiological mechanisms implicated in AF development in COPD, underlines the prognostic significance of AF in COPD patients and vice versa, and highlights emerging therapeutic approaches in this setting.

Prognostic impact of restored sinus rhythm in patients with sepsis and new-onset atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NeOAF) is a common type of tachyarrhythmia in critically ill patients and is associated with increased mortality in patients with sepsis. However, the prognostic impact of restored sinus rhythm (SR) in septic patients with NeOAF remains unclear.

METHODS

A total of 791 patients with sepsis, who were admitted to a medical intensive care unit from January 2011 to January 2014, were screened. NeOAF was detected by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring. Patients were categorized into three groups: no NeOAF, NeOAF with restored SR (NeOAF to SR), and NeOAF with failure to restore SR (NeOAF to atrial fibrillation (AF)). The endpoint of this study was in-hospital mortality. Patients with pre-existing AF were excluded.

RESULTS

We reviewed the data of 503 eligible patients, including 263 patients with no NeOAF and 240 patients with NeOAF. Of these 240 patients, SR was restored in 165 patients, and SR could not be restored in 75 patients. The NeOAF to AF group had the highest in-hospital mortality rate of 61.3% compared with the NeOAF to SR and no NeOAF groups (26.1% and 17.5%, respectively). Moreover, multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that failure of restored SR was independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis and NeOAF.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to restore a sinus rhythm in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation may be associated with increased in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify the effects of restoration of sinus rhythm on survival in patients with sepsis and new-onset atrial fibrillation.