Practice Patterns and Outcomes of Treatments for Atrial Fibrillation During Sepsis: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

Echocardiography predictors of sustained sinus rhythm after cardioversion of supraventricular arrhythmia in patients with septic shock

PURPOSE

The echocardiography parameters may predict the maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of a supraventricular arrhythmia (SVA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients in septic shock with onset of an SVA, normal to moderately reduced LV systolic function (EF_LV˃̳35%) and on a continuous noradrenaline of <1.0 μg/kg.min were included. Echocardiography was performed at the arrhythmia onset, 1 h and 4 h post cardioversion on an infusion of propafenone or amiodarone.

RESULTS

Cardioversion was achieved in 96% of the 209 patients within a median time of 6(1.8-15.6)h, 134(64.1%) patients experienced at least one SVA recurrence after cardioversion. At 4 h the left atrial emptying fraction (LA_EF, cut-off 38.4%, AUC 0.69,p˂0.001), and transmitral A wave velocity-time-integral (Avti, cut-off 6.8 cm, AUC 0.65,p = 0.001) showed as limited predictors of a single arrhythmia recurrence. The LA_EF 44(36,49)%, (p = 0.005) and the Avti 8.65(7.13,9.50)cm, (p < 0.001) were associated with sustained sinus rhythm and decreased proportionally to increasing numbers of arrhythmia recurrences (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively). The enlarged left atrial end-systolic diameter at the arrhythmia onset (p = 0.04) and elevated systolic pulmonary artery pressure at 4 h (p = 0.007) were weak predictors of multiple(˃3) recurrences.

CONCLUSION

The LA_EF and Avti are related to arrhythmia recurrences post-cardioversion suggesting potential guidance to the choice between rhythm and rate control strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029169, registered on 24th of January 2017.

A Comparison of the Impact of Pharmacological Treatments on Cardioversion, Rate Control, and Mortality in Data-Driven Atrial Fibrillation Phenotypes in Critical Care

Critical care physicians are commonly faced with patients exhibiting atrial fibrillation (AF), a cardiac arrhythmia with multifaceted origins. Recent investigations shed light on the heterogeneity among AF patients by uncovering unique AF phenotypes, characterized by differing treatment strategies and clinical outcomes. In this retrospective study encompassing 9401 AF patients in an intensive care cohort, we sought to identify differences in average treatment effects (ATEs) across different patient groups. We extract data from the MIMIC-III database, use hierarchical agglomerative clustering to identify patients' phenotypes, and assign them to treatment groups based on their initial drug administration during AF episodes. The treatment options examined included beta blockers (BBs), potassium channel blockers (PCBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and magnesium sulfate (MgS). Utilizing multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting, we estimate ATEs related to rhythm control, rate control, and mortality, approximated as hourly and daily rates (%/h, %/d). Our analysis unveiled four distinctive AF phenotypes: (1) postoperative hypertensive, (2) non-cardiovascular mutlimorbid, (3) cardiovascular multimorbid, and (4) valvulopathy atrial dilation. PCBs showed the highest cardioversion rates across phenotypes, ranging from 11.6%/h (9.35-13.3) to 7.69%/h (5.80-9.22). While CCBs demonstrated the highest effectiveness in controlling ventricular rates within the overall patient cohort, PCBs and MgS outperformed them in specific phenotypes. PCBs exhibited the most favorable mortality outcomes overall, except for the non-cardiovascular multimorbid cluster, where BBs displayed a lower mortality rate of 1.33%/d [1.04-1.93] compared to PCBs' 1.68%/d [1.10-2.24]. The results of this study underscore the significant diversity in ATEs among individuals with AF and suggest that phenotype-based classification could be a valuable tool for physicians, providing personalized insights to inform clinical decision making.

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in the Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most frequently encountered cardiac arrhythmia observed in patients with COVID-19 infection, particularly in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. The purpose of the present review is to delve into the occurrence of NOAF in COVID-19 and thoroughly review recent, pertinent data. However, the causality behind this connection has yet to be thoroughly explored. The proposed mechanisms that could contribute to the development of AF in these patients include myocardial damage resulting from direct virus-induced cardiac injury, potentially leading to perimyocarditis; a cytokine crisis and heightened inflammatory response; hypoxemia due to acute respiratory distress; disturbances in acid-base and electrolyte levels; as well as the frequent use of adrenergic drugs in critically ill patients. Additionally, secondary bacterial sepsis and septic shock have been suggested as primary causes of NOAF in ICU patients. This notion gains strength from the observation of a similar prevalence of NOAF in septic non-COVID ICU patients with ARDS. It is plausible that both myocardial involvement from SARS-CoV-2 and secondary sepsis play pivotal roles in the onset of arrhythmia in ICU patients. Nonetheless, there exists a significant variation in the prevalence of NOAF among studies focused on severe COVID-19 cases with ARDS. This discrepancy could be attributed to the inclusion of mixed populations with varying degrees of illness severity, encompassing not only patients in general wards but also those admitted to the ICU, whether intubated or not. Furthermore, the occurrence of NOAF is linked to increased morbidity and mortality. However, it remains to be determined whether NOAF independently influences outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 ICU patients or if it merely reflects the disease's severity. Lastly, the management of NOAF in these patients has not been extensively studied. Nevertheless, the current guidelines for NOAF in non-COVID ICU patients appear to be effective, while accounting for the specific drugs used in COVID-19 treatment that may prolong the QT interval (although drugs like lopinavir/ritonavir, hydrochlorothiazide, and azithromycin have been discontinued) or induce bradycardia (e.g., remdesivir).

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.

New-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill adult patients-an SSAI clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Acute or new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill adult patients, and observational data suggests that NOAF is associated to adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We prepared this guideline according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We posed the following clinical questions: (1) what is the better first-line pharmacological agent for the treatment of NOAF in critically ill adult patients?, (2) should we use direct current (DC) cardioversion in critically ill adult patients with NOAF and hemodynamic instability caused by atrial fibrillation?, (3) should we use anticoagulant therapy in critically ill adult patients with NOAF?, and (4) should critically ill adult patients with NOAF receive follow-up after discharge from hospital? We assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality, thromboembolic events, and adverse events. Patients and relatives were part of the guideline panel.

RESULTS

The quantity and quality of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults was very limited, and we did not identify any relevant direct or indirect evidence from randomized clinical trials for the prespecified PICO questions. We were able to propose one weak recommendation against routine use of therapeutic dose anticoagulant therapy, and one best practice statement for routine follow-up by a cardiologist after hospital discharge. We were not able to propose any recommendations on the better first-line pharmacological agent or whether to use DC cardioversion in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability induced by NOAF. An electronic version of this guideline in layered and interactive format is available in MAGIC: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7197.

CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults is very limited and not informed by direct evidence from randomized clinical trials. Practice variation appears considerable.

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.

Atrial Fibrillation Occurring During Acute Hospitalization: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Acute atrial fibrillation is defined as atrial fibrillation detected in the setting of acute care or acute illness; atrial fibrillation may be detected or managed for the first time during acute hospitalization for another condition. Atrial fibrillation after cardiothoracic surgery is a distinct type of acute atrial fibrillation. Acute atrial fibrillation is associated with high risk of long-term atrial fibrillation recurrence, warranting clinical attention during acute hospitalization and over long-term follow-up. A framework of substrates and triggers can be useful for evaluating and managing acute atrial fibrillation. Acute management requires a multipronged approach with interdisciplinary care collaboration, tailoring treatments to the patient's underlying substrate and acute condition. Key components of acute management include identification and treatment of triggers, selection and implementation of rate/rhythm control, and management of anticoagulation. Acute rate or rhythm control strategy should be individualized with consideration of the patient's capacity to tolerate rapid rates or atrioventricular dyssynchrony, and the patient's ability to tolerate the risk of the therapeutic strategy. Given the high risks of atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients with acute atrial fibrillation, clinical follow-up and heart rhythm monitoring are warranted. Long-term management is guided by patient substrate, with implications for intensity of heart rhythm monitoring, anticoagulation, and considerations for rhythm management strategies. Overall management of acute atrial fibrillation addresses substrates and triggers. The 3As of acute management are acute triggers, atrial fibrillation rate/rhythm management, and anticoagulation. The 2As and 2Ms of long-term management include monitoring of heart rhythm and modification of lifestyle and risk factors, in addition to considerations for atrial fibrillation rate/rhythm management and anticoagulation. Several gaps in knowledge related to acute atrial fibrillation exist and warrant future research.

Inflammatory signalling in atrial cardiomyocytes: a novel unifying principle in atrial fibrillation pathophysiology

Inflammation has been implicated in atrial fibrillation (AF), a very common and clinically significant cardiac rhythm disturbance, but its precise role remains poorly understood. Work performed over the past 5 years suggests that atrial cardiomyocytes have inflammatory signalling machinery - in particular, components of the NLRP3 (NACHT-, LRR- and pyrin domain-containing 3) inflammasome - that is activated in animal models and patients with AF. Furthermore, work in animal models suggests that NLRP3 inflammasome activation in atrial cardiomyocytes might be a sufficient and necessary condition for AF occurrence. In this Review, we evaluate the evidence for the role and pathophysiological significance of cardiomyocyte NLRP3 signalling in AF. We first summarize the evidence for a role of inflammation in AF and review the biochemical properties of the NLRP3 inflammasome, as defined primarily in studies of classic inflammation. We then briefly consider the broader evidence for a role of inflammatory signalling in heart disease, particularly conditions that predispose individuals to develop AF. We provide a detailed discussion of the available information about atrial cardiomyocyte NLRP3 inflammasome signalling in AF and related conditions and evaluate the possibility that similar signalling might be important in non-myocyte cardiac cells. We then review the evidence on the role of active resolution of inflammation and its potential importance in suppressing AF-related inflammatory signalling. Finally, we consider the therapeutic potential and broader implications of this new knowledge and highlight crucial questions to be addressed in future research.

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.

Underestimated Ischemic Heart Disease in Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events after Septicemia Discharge

Background and Objectives: Sepsis increases cardiovascular disease and causes death. Ischemic heart disease (IHD) without acute myocardial infarction has been discussed less, and the relationship between risk factors and IHD in septicemia survivors within six months is worthy of in-depth study. Our study demonstrated the incidence of IHD and the possible risk factors for IHD in septicemia patients within six months. Materials and Methods: An inpatient dataset of the Taiwanese Longitudinal Health Insurance Database between 2001 and 2003 was used. The events were defined as rehospitalization of stroke and IHD after discharge or death within six months after the first septicemia hospitalization. The relative factors of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and IHD were identified by multivariate Cox proportional regression. Results: There were 4323 septicemia survivors and 404 (9.3%) IHD. New-onset atrial fibrillation had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.705 (95% confidence interval (C.I.): 1.156–2.516) for MACEs and carried a 184% risk with HR 2.836 (95% C.I.: 1.725–4.665) for IHD by adjusted area and other risk factors. Conclusions: This study explored advanced-aged patients who experienced more severe septicemia with new-onset atrial fibrillation, which increases the incidence of IHD in MACEs within six months of septicemia. Therefore, healthcare providers must identify patients with a higher IHD risk and modify risk factors beforehand.

Prevalence of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and Associated Outcomes in Patients with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is a common complication in patients with sepsis, although its prevalence and impact on outcomes are still unclear. We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of NOAF in patients with sepsis, and its impact on in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched on 26 December 2021. Studies reporting on the prevalence of NOAF and/or its impact on in-hospital mortality or ICU mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. The pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, as well as the risk ratios (RR), 95%CI and 95% prediction intervals (PI) for outcomes. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to account for heterogeneity. Results: Among 4988 records retrieved from the literature search, 22 articles were included. Across 207,847 patients with sepsis, NOAF was found in 13.5% (95%CI: 8.9–20.1%), with high heterogeneity between studies; significant subgroup differences were observed, according to the geographical location, study design and sample size of the included studies. A multivariable meta-regression model showed that sample size and geographical location account for most of the heterogeneity. NOAF patients showed an increased risk of both in-hospital mortality (RR: 1.69, 95%CI: 1.47–1.96, 95%PI: 1.15–2.50) and ICU mortality (RR: 2.12, 95%CI: 1.86–2.43, 95%PI: 1.71–2.63), with moderate to no heterogeneity between the included studies. Conclusions: NOAF is a common complication during sepsis, being present in one out of seven individuals. Patients with NOAF are at a higher risk of adverse events during sepsis, and may need specific therapeutical interventions.

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.

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

Beta-Adrenergic Blockade in Critical Illness

Catecholamine upregulation is a core pathophysiological feature in critical illness. Sustained catecholamine β-adrenergic induction produces adverse effects relevant to critical illness management. β-blockers (βB) have proposed roles in various critically ill disease states, including sepsis, trauma, burns, and cardiac arrest. Mounting evidence suggests βB improve hemodynamic and metabolic parameters culminating in decreased burn healing time, reduced mortality in traumatic brain injury, and improved neurologic outcomes following cardiac arrest. In sepsis, βB appear hemodynamically benign after acute resuscitation and may augment cardiac function. The emergence of ultra-rapid βB provides new territory for βB, and early data suggest significant improvements in mitigating atrial fibrillation in persistently tachycardic septic patients. This review summarizes the evidence regarding the pharmacotherapeutic role of βB on relevant pathophysiology and clinical outcomes in various types of critical illness.

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.

Transesophageal echocardiography for cardiovascular risk estimation in patients with sepsis and new-onset atrial fibrillation: a multicenter prospective pilot study

Background

Echocardiographic parameters have been poorly investigated for estimating cardiovascular risk in patients with sepsis and new-onset atrial fibrillation. We aim to assess the prevalence of transesophageal echocardiographic abnormalities and their relationship with cardiovascular events in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and new-onset atrial fibrillation.

Methods

In this prospective multicenter pilot study, left atrial/left atrial appendage (LA/LAA) dysfunction, severe aortic atheroma, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction were assessed using an initial transesophageal echocardiographic study, which was repeated after 48–72 h to detect LA/LAA thrombus formation. The study outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events at day 28, including arterial thromboembolic events (ischemic stroke, non-cerebrovascular arterial thromboembolism, LA/LAA thrombus), major bleeding, and all-cause death.

Results

The study population comprised 94 patients (septic shock 63%; 35% women; median age 69 years). LA/LAA dysfunction, severe aortic atheroma, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction were detected in 17 (19%), 22 (24%), and 27 (29%) patients, respectively. At day 28, the incidence of cardiovascular events was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35 to 56). Arterial thromboembolic events and major bleeding occurred in 7 (7%) patients (5 ischemic strokes, 1 non-cerebrovascular arterial thromboembolism, 2 left atrial appendage thrombi) and 18 (19%) patients, respectively. At day 28, 27 patients (29%) died. Septic shock (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.36; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.29) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (HR: 2.06; 95% CI 1.05 to 4.05) were independently associated with cardiovascular events.

Conclusions

Transesophageal echocardiographic abnormalities are common in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis and new-onset atrial fibrillation, but only left ventricular systolic dysfunction was associated with cardiovascular events at day 28.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-021-00934-1.

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.

Prevalence and Impact of Atrial Fibrillation in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular complications are common and associated with poor prognosis. Among these, an association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and COVID-19 has been described; however, the extent of this relationship is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of AF in COVID-19 patients and its impact on all-cause mortality.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021227950). PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for relevant studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Overall, 31 studies were included in the analysis, with a total number of 187,716 COVID-19 patients. The prevalence of AF was found to be as high as 8% of patients with COVID-19 (95% CI: 6.3-10.2%, 95% prediction intervals (PI): 2.0-27.1%), with a high degree of heterogeneity between studies; a multiple meta-regression model including geographical location, age, hypertension, and diabetes showed that these factors accounted for more than a third of the heterogeneity. AF COVID-19 patients were less likely to be female but more likely older, hypertensive, and with a critical status than those without AF. Patients with AF showed a significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 3.97, 95% CI: 2.76-5.71), with a high degree of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis focusing on new-onset AF showed the consistency of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among COVID-19 patients, AF is found in 8% of patients. AF COVID-19 patients are older, more hypertensive, and more likely to have a critical status. In COVID-19 patients, AF is associated with a 4-fold higher risk of death. Further studies are needed to define the best treatment strategies to improve the prognosis of AF COVID-19 patients.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Heart Rate Control Medications for the Treatment of Sepsis-Associated Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response frequently complicates the management of critically ill patients with sepsis and may necessitate the initiation of medication to avoid hemodynamic compromise. However, the optimal medication to achieve rate control for AF with rapid ventricular response in sepsis is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the comparative effectiveness of frequently used AF medications (β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, and digoxin) on heart rate (HR) reduction among critically ill patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study among patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response (HR > 110 beats/min). We compared the rate control effectiveness of β-blockers to calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, and digoxin using multivariate-adjusted, time-varying exposures in competing risk models (for death and addition of another AF medication), adjusting for fixed and time-varying confounders.

RESULTS

Among 666 included patients, 50.6% initially received amiodarone, 10.1% received a β-blocker, 33.8% received a calcium channel blocker, and 5.6% received digoxin. The adjusted hazard ratio for HR of < 110 beats/min by 1 h was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.74) for amiodarone vs β-blocker, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.18-0.77) for digoxin vs β-blocker, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.11) for calcium channel blocker vs β-blocker. By 6 h, the adjusted hazard ratio for HR < 110 beats/min was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.97) for amiodarone vs β-blocker, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-1.004) for digoxin vs β-blocker, and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.71-1.49) for calcium channel blocker vs β-blocker.

INTERPRETATION

In a large cohort of patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response, a β-blocker treatment strategy was associated with improved HR control at 1 h, but generally similar HR control at 6 h compared with amiodarone, calcium channel blocker, or digoxin.

Effect of Ultrashort-Acting β-Blockers on Mortality in Patients With Sepsis With Persistent Tachycardia Despite Initial Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Historically, β-blockers have been considered to be relatively contraindicated for septic shock because they may cause cardiac suppression. On the other hand, there is an increasing interest in the use of β-blockers for treating patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do ultrashort-acting β-blockers such as esmolol and landiolol improve mortality in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the mortality of patients with sepsis and septic shock treated with esmolol or landiolol. We updated our search on April 20, 2020. Two independent reviewers assessed whether titles and abstracts met the following eligibility criteria: (1) RCT, (2) patients with sepsis and septic shock ≥ 18 years of age, and (3) treatment with either esmolol/landiolol or placebo/no interventions. Two authors independently extracted selected patient and study characteristics and outcomes. The results of all analyses are presented using random effect models.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with a pooled sample size of 613 patients were included. Of these, six RCTs with 572 patients reported 28-day mortality. Esmolol or landiolol use in patients with sepsis and septic shock was significantly associated with lower 28-day mortality (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P < .001). Unimportant heterogeneity was observed (I² = 31%). The absolute risk reduction and number of patients to be treated to prevent one death were 18.2% and 5.5, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

The use of ultrashort-acting β-blockers such as esmolol and landiolol in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation was associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRY

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000040174; URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

Perioperative Management of Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock, Part II: Ultrasound Support for Resuscitation

Point-of-care ultrasound is capable of identifying the precise causes of hemodynamic failure in patients with septic shock. Patients in shock demonstrate complex alterations in their circulation, including changes in loading conditions (preload and afterload), right and left ventricular function, and development of obstructive physiology, and some of them have a burden of underlying cardiac disease. Knowledge of underlying hemodynamic derangements in such situations allows targeted interventions, that is, fluids, vasoactive, and inotropic medications, to optimize patient's perfusion. One example of competing goals involves a patient with hypertrophic "thick" left ventricle (LV), which is easily identified using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Such patients usually have diastolic dysfunction and commonly require higher filling pressures (mainly grade II and III diastolic dysfunction) to maintain adequate cardiac output. They are vulnerable to the effects of hypovolemia with the potential for dynamic LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. The use of inotrope is harmful under these circumstances and could lead to worsening of the obstructive physiology because of systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve leaflet and mitral regurgitation with rapid progression toward a cardiac arrest. Recognizing the increasingly important role of POCUS in the perioperative arena, in this review, we highlight how POCUS allows anesthesiologists to recognize and manage hemodynamic derangements in patients with sepsis and septic shock. We provide a systematic approach to the evaluation of this patient population using qualitative assessment of myocardial performance, fluid responsiveness, and fluid tolerance. Our approach is based on a limited number of ultrasound views: subcostal, inferior vena cava (IVC), and lung views are obtained in rapid succession. A combination of findings in these views is grouped into distinct hemodynamic phenotypes, each of them requiring their own approach to management.

Evaluation of Anticoagulation Practice With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock in Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Objective

To investigate the anticoagulation practice in patients presenting with new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) during sepsis and septic shock with one-year follow-up since discharge and to evaluate factors associated with the development of NOAF.

Methods

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using chart review in patients diagnosed with sepsis and septic shock. 

Results

There was a total of 1132 patients diagnosed with sepsis and septic shock over a one-year period. Thirty-two patients were found to have NOAF in the setting of sepsis. Of this, eight (25%) patients were anticoagulated with warfarin and 14 (44%) patients were not anticoagulated during discharge. At one-year follow-up post-discharge, nine (29%) patients continued on warfarin and 16 (52%) patients remained not anticoagulated.

Conclusion

We found that the majority of patients who developed NOAF did not get anticoagulated at the time of discharge. A similar trend followed after one year of follow-up. Since proper treatment guidelines are not in place, these patients are at high risk for recurrent atrial fibrillation, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and death. 

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill adult patients who developed NOAF during admission.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the management of new onset atrial fibrillation in critically unwell adult patients

BACKGROUND

New onset atrial fibrillation is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia in critically unwell patients with a reported incidence of 4% to 29%. The occurrence of new onset atrial fibrillation may precipitate acute heart failure and lead to thromboembolic complications as well as being associated with increased in-hospital and in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Despite being common, much of our current knowledge regarding the treatment of new onset atrial fibrillation comes from patients with chronic atrial fibrillation or post cardiac surgery. It is unclear if management strategies in these patient cohorts can be applied to new onset atrial fibrillation in the general ICU. This protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to address this uncertainty and define what is the most effective management strategy for the treatment of new onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in acutely unwell adult patients.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we plan to search electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and relevant trial registries) for relevant randomised and non-randomised trials. Citations will be reviewed by title, abstract and full text by two independent reviewers and disagreement resolved by discussion and a third independent reviewer, if necessary. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias in randomised trials and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool will be used for non-randomised studies. Statistical analysis will be carried out using R package meta and netmeta. We will first conduct a pairwise meta-analysis. If conditions for indirect comparison are satisfied and suitable data are available, we will conduct network meta-analysis using frequentist methodology. Treatments will be ranked according to efficacy with associated P-scores. We will assess the quality of the evidence in the pairwise using GRADE methodology and network meta-analysis comparisons in the CINeMA module in R package meta.

DISCUSSION

Our review will be the first to assess direct and indirect evidence to assess the efficacy and rank the treatments available for new onset atrial fibrillation in critically unwell patients. Our review findings will be applicable to the care of people in a range of acute settings including, ICU, the emergency department and acute medical units.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019121739.

Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study

INTRODUCTION

Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a successful cardioversion and help in the decision on rhythm or rate control strategy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The trial includes septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia, but without severe impairment of the left ventricular ejection fraction. After baseline echocardiography, the patient is randomised to receive a bolus and maintenance dose of either amiodarone or propafenone. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcomes are the percentages of patients that needed rescue treatments (DC cardioversion or unblinding and crossover of the antiarrhythmics), the recurrence of arrhythmias, intensive care unit mortality, 28-day and 1-year mortality. In the posthoc analysis, we separately assess subgroups of patients with pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In the exploratory part of the study, we assess whether the presence of a transmitral diastolic A wave and its higher velocity-time integral is predictive for the sustainability of mechanical SR and whether the indexed left atrial endsystolic volume is predictive of recurrent arrhythmia. Considering that the restoration of SR within 24 hours occurred in 74% of the amiodarone-treated patients and in 89% of the patients treated with propafenone, we plan to include 200 patients to have an 80% chance to demonstrate the superiority of propafenone at p=0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial is recruiting patients according to its second protocol version approved by the University Hospital Ethical Board on the 6 October 2017 (No. 1691/16S-IV). The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03029169.

Hemodynamic profiles following digoxin use in patients with sepsis in the ICU

PURPOSE

To explore the impact of digoxin on hemodynamic parameters in patients with sepsis and tachycardia admitted to the intensive care unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of adult patients admitted to the medical and mixed ICU at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota from March 2008 to February 2018, initiated on digoxin within 24 h of ICU stay. Hemodynamic parameters were reviewed before digoxin administration and at 6, 12 and 24 h after. Adverse events including new onset conduction abnormalities or arrhythmias during the first 48 h after digoxin administration were reviewed by a critical care cardiologist.

RESULTS

Study included 180 patients. We observed significant decrease in heart rate from 124 (115-138) beats/min 1 h before digoxin to 101 (87-117) 6 h after digoxin and 94 (84-112) 12 h after (p < .01). Median systolic blood pressure increased from 100 (91-112) mm Hg 1 h before to 110 (100-122) (p < .01) and 111 (103-124) at 6 and 12 h respectively after digoxin.

CONCLUSIONS

Early digoxin administration in patients with sepsis and tachycardia is uncommon but associated with improvements of hemodynamic parameters. These preliminary results will help formulate future hypotheses for focused trials on utility, efficacy and safety of digoxin in sepsis.

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.

[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.

[New onset atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis]

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most common new onset arrhythmia in patients hospitalized with sepsis; however, there are no specific treatment guidelines and the ideal therapeutic approaches still remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To begin with the current state of knowledge concerning the underling mechanisms, the incidence and prognostic impact of new onset atrial fibrillation during sepsis are presented. Then a possible therapeutic algorithm for the special situation of sepsis is derived with respect to the currently existing atrial fibrillation guidelines. Finally necessary future research topics are outlined.

MATERIAL ANS METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE. All publications (reviews and studies) relevant for the summary of the current knowledge regarding new onset atrial fibrillation in septic patients were included.

RESULTS

The underlying patchomechanism is primarily systemic inflammation. Approximately 8% of patients with sepsis and more than 20% of patients with septic shock develop new onset atrial fibrillation. The occurrence of atrial fibrillation is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The necessity of rhythm control therapy is dependent on the hemodynamic stability. The success rate of electrical cardioversion can be increased by the administration of amiodarone. The necessity of systemic anticoagulation is based on the individual risk of thromboembolism.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to unveil the optimal therapeutic strategies for patients with new onset atrial fibrillation during sepsis.

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.

Landiolol for managing atrial fibrillation in intensive care

Landiolol is an injectable ultrashort acting beta-blocker with high beta1 selectivity indicated for heart rate control of atrial fibrillation in the emergency and critical care setting. Accordingly, landiolol is associated with a significantly reduced risk of arterial hypotension and negative inotropic effects. Based on this particular profile along with the clinical experience in Japan for more than a decade landiolol represents a promising agent for the management of elevated heart rate and atrial fibrillation in intensive care patients even with catecholamine requirements. This article provides a review and perspective of landiolol for heart rate control in intensive care patients based on the current literature.

Severe sepsis and cardiac arrhythmias

Background

Although sepsis is a known risk factor for cardiac arrhythmias, data on incidence and outcomes of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in severe sepsis is limited. The purpose of this study is to examine the association of severe sepsis with cardiac arrhythmias and their impact on outcome in this patient population.

Methods

We used hospital discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) during the year 2012. All patients 18 years or older were included in the study. The International Classification of Diseases-Clinical Modification, 9th revision (ICD-9-CM) code was used to identify patients with discharge diagnosis of severe sepsis, atrial fibrillation (A Fib), atrial flutter (AFL), ventricular fibrillation (VF) arrest and non-ventricular fibrillation (non-VF) arrest. In order to study the association of arrhythmias with severe sepsis, two groups were defined: group a-with severe sepsis was compared to group b-without severe sepsis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods were used to adjust for potential confounding factors and variables associated with cardiac arrhythmias were determined.

Results

A total of 30,712,524 NIS hospital discharges (weighted for national estimate) were included in our study, of which 1,756,965 (5.7%) had severe sepsis. On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for potential confounders, severe sepsis was associated with higher risk of A Fib (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.24), AFL (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.30-1.40), VF arrest (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.38-2.79) (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 3.07-3.57) and non-VF arrest (OR, 4.91; 95% CI, 4.74-5.07). In the severe sepsis group, cardiac arrhythmia was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45), length of stay (LOS) >75% quartile (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.46-1.53) and total hospital charges >75% quartile (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.34-1.41). Advanced age, male sex, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus (DM), congestive heart failure (CHF), valvular heart disease, respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation and use of vasopressors were independently associated with cardiac arrhythmias.

Conclusions

Patients with severe sepsis are at high risk of atrial and life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Despite adjustment for potential confounding factors, patients hospitalized with severe sepsis carry a significantly higher risk for cardiac arrest and increased mortality.

Time to re-think the use of dobutamine in sepsis

Dobutamine is commonly used worldwide and included in the protocol for early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). Since the use of dobutamine in EGDT was reported, it has been considered to be an important component, especially in the treatment of septic patients with myocardial dysfunction. However, it is questionable whether dobutamine improves the mortality of sepsis and septic shock.

In three recent randomized controlled trials (ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE trials), the frequency of dobutamine use was significantly higher in the EGDT group than in the standard care group, but there were no significant differences in the mortality between the groups. These results suggested that dobutamine use may have been overemphasized despite its insignificant effect on the mortality in septic patients. Further, a propensity score analysis revealed that dobutamine use was associated with higher mortality in patients with septic shock.

Although dobutamine leads to an increase in cardiac index, myocardial oxygen demand also increases, thus increasing the risk of myocardial ischemia and tachyarrhythmia. It is well known that the mortality in sepsis complicated with atrial fibrillation (AFib) is worse than that in sepsis without AFib. A propensity score-matched analysis reported that β-blockers were associated with better survival in patients with sepsis complicated with AFib. Further, a randomized controlled trial reported that a short-acting β-blocker improved the survival in patients with septic shock. These studies also indicated the risk of β-stimulation during sepsis.

Notably, improvements in surrogate markers, such as CI, do not always indicate improvements in patient-centered outcomes, such as mortality. Conversely, some evidence indicates the worsening of patient-centered outcomes despite improvements in surrogate markers.

Thus, available evidence suggests that the benefits of dobutamine in patients with sepsis are unclear, but its use might be harmful rather than beneficial, considering the beneficial effects of β-blockers in sepsis that have been reported in recent clinical studies. From this perspective, we will soon have to rethink regarding dobutamine use in patients with sepsis.

Landiolol is effective for the treatment of tachycardia-induced cardiogenic shock in patients during septic shock therapy

Septic shock is a life-threatening condition that occurs when the blood pressure drops to a low level after an infection. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia to complicate its course. Beta (β)-blockers are often administrated to manage supraventricular tachyarrhythmias observed in patients presenting with sepsis. A 74-year-old woman presenting with sepsis demonstrated AF tachycardia characterised by severe hypotension. She was refractory to conventional therapy including verapamil and digoxin; therefore, treatment using landiolol (an ultrashort-acting β-blocker) was initiated. Her clinical course was followed over 48 hours, and she showed a significant improvement in her heart rate and blood pressure without any adverse effect. Landiolol can rapidly control the accelerated heart rate associated with AF in critically decompensated patients presenting with septic shock.

Sepsis and Septic Shock Strategies

Three therapeutic principles most substantially improve organ dysfunction and survival in sepsis: early, appropriate antimicrobial therapy; restoration of adequate cellular perfusion; timely source control. The new definitions of sepsis and septic shock reflect the inadequate sensitivity, specify, and lack of prognostication of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment more effectively prognosticates in sepsis and critical illness. Inadequate cellular perfusion accelerates injury and reestablishing perfusion limits injury. Multiple organ systems are affected by sepsis and septic shock and an evidence-based multipronged approach to systems-based therapy in critical illness results in improve outcomes.

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.

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in the Critically Ill

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of new-onset atrial fibrillation with outcomes, including ICU length of stay and survival.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort of ICU admissions. We found atrial fibrillation using automated detection (≥ 90 s in 30 min) and classed as new-onset if there was no prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. We identified determinants of new-onset atrial fibrillation and, using propensity matching, characterized its impact on outcomes.

SETTING

Tertiary care academic center.

PATIENTS

A total of 8,356 consecutive adult admissions to either the medical or surgical/trauma/burn ICU with available continuous electrocardiogram data.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

From 74 patient-years of every 15-minute observations, we detected atrial fibrillation in 1,610 admissions (19%), with median burden less than 2%. Most atrial fibrillation was paroxysmal; less than 2% of admissions were always in atrial fibrillation. New-onset atrial fibrillation was subclinical or went undocumented in 626, or 8% of all ICU admissions. Advanced age, acute respiratory failure, and sepsis were the strongest predictors of new-onset atrial fibrillation. In propensity-adjusted regression analyses, clinical new-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with increased hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.63) and longer length of stay (2.25 d; CI, 0.58-3.92). New-onset atrial fibrillation was not associated with survival after hospital discharge (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76-1.28 and hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.67-1.83, respectively, for subclinical and clinical new-onset atrial fibrillation).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated analysis of continuous electrocardiogram heart rate dynamics detects new-onset atrial fibrillation in many ICU patients. Though often transient and frequently unrecognized, new-onset atrial fibrillation is associated with poor hospital outcomes.

Practice Patterns and Outcomes Associated With Use of Anticoagulation Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation During Sepsis

IMPORTANCE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) during sepsis is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke during hospitalization, but risks and benefits associated with anticoagulation for AF during sepsis are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine clinician practice patterns and patient risk of stroke and bleeding associated with use of anticoagulation for AF during sepsis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study using enhanced administrative claims data from approximately 20% of patients hospitalized in the United States July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2013, examined patients with AF during sepsis who did not have additional indications for therapeutic anticoagulation. Propensity score and instrumental variable analyses were used to evaluate risks of in-hospital stroke and bleeding associated with anticoagulation during sepsis.

EXPOSURES

Parenteral anticoagulants administered in doses greater than those used for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Ischemic stroke and clinically significant bleeding events during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of 113 511 patients hospitalized with AF and sepsis, 38 582 were included in our primary analysis (18 976 men and 19 606 women; mean [SD] age, 74.9 [11.7] years). A total of 13 611 patients (35.3%) received parenteral anticoagulants, while 24 971 (64.7%) did not. Hospital utilization rates of parenteral anticoagulants for AF during sepsis varied (median, 33%; 25th-75th percentile, 25%-43%). CHA2DS2VASc scores (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years [doubled], type 1 or type 2 diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism [doubled], vascular disease [prior myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, or aortic plaque], age 65-75 years, sex category [female]) poorly discriminated the risk of ischemic stroke during sepsis (C statistic, 0.526). Among 27 010 propensity score-matched patients, rates of in-hospital ischemic stroke events did not differ significantly between patients who did (174 of 13 505 [1.3%]) and did not (185 of 13 505 [1.4%]) receive parenteral anticoagulation (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.15). Clinically significant bleeding occurred more often among patients who received parenteral anticoagulation (1163 of 13 505 [8.6%]) than patients who did not receive parenteral anticoagulation (979 of 13 505 [7.2%]; RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.32). Risk of ischemic stroke associated with parenteral anticoagulation did not differ significantly between patients with preexisting (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44) or newly diagnosed AF (RR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.57-1.27; P = .31 for interaction). Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses, including hospital utilization rates of parenteral anticoagulation for AF as an instrument for anticoagulation exposure (RR for stroke, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90; RR for bleeding, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.88-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with AF during sepsis, parenteral anticoagulation was not associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke and was associated with higher bleeding rates.