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

Landiolol for Treatment of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critical Care: A Systematic Review

Background: new-onset atrial fibrillation remains a common complication in critical care settings, often necessitating treatment when the correction of triggers is insufficient to restore hemodynamics. The treatment strategy includes electric cardioversion in cases of hemodynamic instability and either rhythm control or rate control in the absence of instability. Landiolol, an ultrashort beta-blocker, effectively controls heart rate with the potential to regulate rhythm. Objectives This review aims to compare the efficacy of landiolol in controlling heart rate and converting to sinus rhythm in the critical care setting. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of the published literature from 2000 to 2022 describing the use of landiolol to treat atrial fibrillation in critical care settings, excluding both cardiac surgery and medical cardiac care settings. The primary outcome assessed was sinus conversion following landiolol treatment. Results: Our analysis identified 17 publications detailing the use of landiolol for the treatment of 324 critical care patients. While the quality of the data was generally low, primarily comprising non-comparative studies, landiolol consistently demonstrated similar efficacy in controlling heart rate and facilitating conversion to sinus rhythm in both non-surgical (75.7%) and surgical (70.1%) settings. The incidence of hypotension associated with landiolol use was 13%. Conclusions: The use of landiolol in critical care patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation exhibited comparable efficacy and tolerance in both non-surgical and surgical settings. Despite these promising results, further validation through randomized controlled trials is necessary.

[Perioperative atrial fibrillation : Diagnosis with underestimated relevance]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in adults, both in general and perioperatively and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The age of the patients is a major risk factor. The prevalence of AF in noncardiac surgery (NCS) varies widely from 0.4% to 30% and for cardiac surgery, especially major combined procedures, up to approximately 50%. Ectopic excitation centers and reentry mechanisms at the atrial level are favored as the main process of uncoordinated electrical atrial activity. The loss of atrial contraction can lead to a reduction in cardiac output of up to 20-25%. The increased risk of thromboembolism due to AF extends beyond the perioperative period. Medication-based prevention strategies have not yet gained widespread acceptance. Treatment strategies include frequency and rhythm control as well as the avoidance of thromboembolisms through anticoagulation.

Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared.

METHODS

In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence.

RESULTS

Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p  < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.

Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in the ICU: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: The International AFIB-ICU Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study.

SETTING

Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions.

SUBJECTS

Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99).

CONCLUSIONS

In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

Neurologic Complications of Critical Medical Illness

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the neurologic complications encountered in patients admitted to non-neurologic intensive care units, outlines various scenarios in which a neurologic consultation can add to the diagnosis or management of a critically ill patient, and provides advice on the best diagnostic approach in the evaluation of these patients.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Increasing recognition of neurologic complications and their adverse impact on long-term outcomes has led to increased neurology involvement in non-neurologic intensive care units. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of having a structured clinical approach to neurologic complications of critical illness as well as the critical care management of patients with chronic neurologic disabilities.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

Critical illness is often accompanied by neurologic complications. Neurologists need to be aware of the unique needs of critically ill patients, especially the nuances of the neurologic examination, challenges in diagnostic testing, and neuropharmacologic aspects of commonly used medications.

Development of Core Outcome Sets for trials on the management of Atrial fiBrillAtion in Critically Unwell patientS (COS-ABACUS): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically unwell patients. New-onset AF (NOAF) affects 5%-11% of all admissions and up to 46% admitted with septic shock. NOAF is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Existing trials into the prevention and management of NOAF suffer from significant heterogeneity making comparisons and inferences limited. Core outcome sets (COS) aim to standardise outcome reporting, reduce inconsistency between trials and reduce outcome reporting bias. We aim to develop an internationally agreed COS for trials of interventions on the management of NOAF during critical illness.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stakeholders including intensive care physicians, cardiologists and patients will be recruited from national and international critical care organisations. COS development will occur in five stages: (1) Outcomes included in trials, recent systematic reviews and surveys of clinician practice and patient focus groups will be extracted. (2) Extracted outcomes will inform a two-stage e-Delphi process and consensus meeting using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. (3) Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) will be identified from the literature and a consensus meeting held to agree OMI for core outcomes. (4) Nominal group technique will be used in a final consensus meeting to the COS. (5) The findings of our COS will be published in peer-reviewed journals and implemented in future guidelines and intervention trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the University of Liverpool ethics committee (Ref: 11 256, 21 June 2022), with a formal consent waiver and assumed consent. We will disseminate the finalised COS via national and international critical care organisations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Treatments of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is common in hospitalised patients with critical illness and associated with worse outcomes. Several interventions are available in the management of NOAF, but the overall effectiveness and safety of these interventions compared with placebo or no treatment are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials (RCT) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, the Cochrane Collaboration, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation statements. We searched RCTs assessing any pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment compared with placebo or no treatment in critically ill hospitalised patients with NOAF. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 16 trials (n = 1891) evaluating seven interventions. All trials were adjudicated 'some concerns' or 'high risk' of bias. The evidence is very uncertain for mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.03-8.30), adverse events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.85-1.92), and treatment efficacy i.e. rhythm control (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20-1.97; TSA-adjusted CI 0.56-4.53) between pharmacological treatment and placebo/no treatment (very low certainty evidence). There were no data for health-related quality of life or most of our secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing data are insufficient to firmly conclude on effects of any intervention against NOAF on any outcome in hospitalised patients with critical illness. Randomised trials of the most frequently used interventions against NOAF are warranted in these patients.

Management of acute atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit: An international survey

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Different management strategies exist, but the evidence is limited and derived from non-ICU patients. This international survey of ICU doctors evaluated the preferred management of acute AF in ICU patients.

METHOD

We conducted an international online survey of ICU doctors with 27 questions about the preferred management of acute AF in the ICU, including antiarrhythmic therapy in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients and use of anticoagulant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 910 respondents from 70 ICUs in 14 countries participated in the survey with 24%-100% of doctors from sites responding. Most ICUs (80%) did not have a local guideline for the management of acute AF. The preferred first-line strategy for the management of hemodynamically stable patients with acute AF was observation (95% of respondents), rhythm control (3%), or rate control (2%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, the preferred strategy was observation (48%), rhythm control (48%), or rate control (4%). Overall, preferred antiarrhythmic interventions included amiodarone, direct current cardioversion, beta-blockers other than sotalol, and magnesium in that order. A total of 67% preferred using anticoagulant therapy in ICU patients with AF, among whom 61% preferred therapeutic dose anticoagulants and 39% prophylactic dose anticoagulants.

CONCLUSION

This international survey indicated considerable practice variation among ICU doctors in the clinical management of acute AF, including the overall management strategies and the use of antiarrhythmic interventions and anticoagulants.

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.

•

NOAF in ICU patients is followed by decreases in blood pressure and increased vasoactive drug use

•

Beta blockers (BBs) and amiodarone were associated with similar rate and rhythm control

•

Digoxin was associated with inferior rate control compared to amiodarone

•

Calcium channel blockers were associated with inferior rhythm control compared to amiodarone

•

Previously reported mortality benefits associated with BB treatment were not apparent

Antithrombotic management of patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary stenting: a prospective, observational, nationwide study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess current management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing coronary stenting.

DESIGN

Non-interventional, prospective, nationwide study.

SETTING

76 private or public cardiology centres in Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with ACS with concomitant AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

To obtain accurate and up-to-date information on pharmacological management of patients with AF admitted for an ACS and undergoing PCI with stent implantation.

RESULTS

Over a 12-month period, 598 consecutive patients were enrolled: 48.8% with AF at hospital admission and 51.2% developing AF during hospitalisation. At discharge, a triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) was prescribed in 64.8%, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in 25.7% and dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in 8.8% of patients. Among patients with AF at admission, TAT and DAT were more frequently prescribed compared with patients with new-onset AF (76.3% vs 53.8% and 12.5% vs 5.3%, respectively; both p<0.0001), while a DAPT was less often used (11.2% vs 39.5%; p<0.0001). At multivariable analysis, a major bleeding event (OR: 5.40; 95% CI: 2.42 to 12.05; p<0.0001) and malignancy (OR: 5.11; 95% CI: 1.77 to 14.78; p=0.003) resulted the most important independent predictors of DAT prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary registry of patients with ACS with AF treated with coronary stents, TAT still resulted as the antithrombotic strategy of choice, DAT was reserved for high bleeding risk and DAPT was mainly prescribed in those developing AF during hospitalisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03656523.