Risk of thromboembolism in patients developing critical illness-associated atrial fibrillation

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.

Magnesium prophylaxis of new-onset atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in intensive care units (ICU) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Magnesium prophylaxis has been shown to reduce incidence of AF in cardiac surgery patients, however, evidence outside this population is limited. The objective of this study is to summarize studies examining magnesium versus placebo in the prevention of NOAF outside the setting of cardiac surgery.

SOURCE

We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception until January 3rd, 2023. We included all interventional research studies that compared magnesium to placebo and excluded case reports and post cardiac surgery patients. We conducted meta-analysis using the inverse variance method with random effects modelling.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of the 1493 studies imported for screening, 87 full texts were assessed for eligibility and six citations, representing five randomized controlled trials (n = 4713), were included in the review, with four studies (n = 4654) included in the pooled analysis. Administration of magnesium did not significantly reduce the incidence of NOAF compared to placebo (OR 0.72, [95% CI 0.48 to 1.09]).

CONCLUSION

Use of magnesium did not reduce the incidence of NOAF, however these studies represent diverse groups and are hindered by significant bias. Further studies are necessary to determine if there is benefit to magnesium prophylaxis for NOAF in non-cardiac surgery 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.

Bihemispheric ischemic strokes in patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND:

There is emerging evidence that COVID-19 can trigger thrombosis because of a hypercoagulable state, including large-vessel occlusion ischemic strokes. Bihemispheric ischemic stroke is uncommon and is thought to indicate an embolic source. Here, we examine the findings and outcomes of patients with bihemispheric stroke in the setting of COVID-19.

METHODS:

We performed a retrospective cohort study at a quaternary academic medical center between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. We identified all patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who presented with simultaneous bihemispheric ischemic strokes.

RESULTS:

Of 637 COVID-19 admissions during the 2-month period, 13 had a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, including 5 who developed bihemispheric cerebral infarction. Three of those 5 (60%) were female, median age was 54 (range 41–67), and all five were being managed for severe COVID-19-related pneumonia complicated by acute kidney injury and liver failure before the diagnosis of cerebral infarction was established. Five presented with elevated ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels, and four had lymphopenia and elevated D-dimer levels. All patients underwent neuroimaging with computed tomography for persistent depressed mentation, with or without a focal neurologic deficit, demonstrating multifocal ischemic strokes with bihemispheric involvement. Outcome was poor in all patients: two were discharged to a rehabilitation facility with moderate-to-severe disability and three (60%) patients died.

CONCLUSIONS:

Stroke is implicated in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although causality cannot be established, we present the imaging and clinical findings of patients with COVID-19 and simultaneous bihemispheric ischemic strokes. Multifocal ischemic strokes with bihemispheric involvement should be considered in COVID-19 patients with severe infection and poor neurologic status and may be associated with poor outcomes.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and outcomes for new-onset atrial fibrillation in ICU patients: the CAFE scoping review and database analyses

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care.

OBJECTIVES

In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK.

RESULTS

Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior.

FUTURE WORK

Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic scoping review to summarise comparative evidence to inform NOAF management for patients admitted to ICU.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials register, additional WHO ICTRP trial databases, and NIHR Clinical Trials Gateway in March 2019. We included studies evaluating treatment or prevention strategies for NOAF or acute anticoagulation in general medical, surgical or mixed adult ICUs. We extracted study details, population characteristics, intervention and comparator(s), methods addressing confounding, results, and recommendations for future research onto study-specific forms.

RESULTS

Of 3,651 citations, 42 articles were eligible: 25 primary studies, 12 review articles and 5 surveys/opinion papers. Definitions of NOAF varied between NOAF lasting 30 s to NOAF lasting > 24 h. Only one comparative study investigated effects of anticoagulation. Evidence from small RCTs suggests calcium channel blockers (CCBs) result in slower rhythm control than beta blockers (1 study), and more cardiovascular instability than amiodarone (1 study). Evidence from 4 non-randomised studies suggests beta blocker and amiodarone therapy may be equivalent in respect to rhythm control. Beta blockers may be associated with improved survival compared to amiodarone, CCBs, and digoxin, though supporting evidence is subject to confounding. Currently, the limited evidence does not support therapeutic anticoagulation during ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

From the limited evidence available beta blockers or amiodarone may be superior to CCBs as first line therapy in undifferentiated patients in ICU. The little evidence available does not support therapeutic anticoagulation for NOAF whilst patients are critically ill. Consensus definitions for NOAF, rate and rhythm control are needed.

Risk Factors of Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Strokes During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Analysis of Data From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

OBJECTIVES

Stroke is commonly reported in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, but risk factors are not well described. We sought to determine preextracorporeal membrane oxygenation and on-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation risk factors for both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes in patients with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

SETTING

Data reported to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization by 366 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers from 2013 to 2019.

PATIENTS

Patients older than 18 years supported with a single run of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 15,872 venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients, 812 (5.1%) had at least one type of acute brain injury, defined as ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or brain death. Overall, 215 (1.4%) experienced ischemic stroke and 484 (3.1%) experienced hemorrhagic stroke. Overall inhospital mortality was 36%, but rates were higher in those with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke (68% and 73%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, preextracorporeal membrane oxygenation pH (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.35; p < 0.001), hemolysis (adjusted odds ratio = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.22-4.24; p = 0.010), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio = 2.01; 95% CI 1.12-3.59; p = 0.019), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (adjusted odds ratio = 3.61; 95% CI, 1.51-8.66; p = 0.004) were independently associated with ischemic stroke. Pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation pH (adjusted odds ratio = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65; p = 0.003), preextracorporeal membrane oxygenation Po2 (adjusted odds ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; p = 0.021), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio = 1.70; 95% CI, 1.15-2.51; p = 0.008), and renal replacement therapy (adjusted odds ratio=1.57; 95% CI, 1.22-2.02; p < 0.001) were independently associated with hemorrhagic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Among venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry, approximately 5% had acute brain injury. Mortality rates increased two-fold when ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes occurred. Risk factors such as lower pH and hypoxemia during the pericannulation period and markers of coagulation disturbances were associated with acute brain injury. Further research on understanding preextracorporeal membrane oxygenation and on-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation risk factors and the timing of acute brain injury is necessary to develop appropriate prevention and management strategies.