Amiodarone versus digoxin for rate control in critically ill patients with rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter

Gritsenko, Diana; Paris, Daryl; Aitken, Samuel L; Lee, Young Im; Altshuler, Jerry

doi:10.21037/jeccm.2018.06.07

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One small study of patients in the ICU with AF with rapid ventricular response (not exclusive to NOAF) demonstrated that digoxin was less effective at rate control in patients receiving catecholaminergic medication. 115 We found that the use of calcium channel blockers was associated with lower rates of achieving rhythm control than amiodarone. These findings are supported by a small, randomised study of paroxysmal AF outside the ICU, 116 which reported a cardioversion proportion of 0% in patients who received verapamil compared with 77% in patients who received amiodarone.…”

Section: The Mimic-iii and Picram Database Analysismentioning

confidence: 75%

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

Bedford

Drikite

Corbett

et al. 2021

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: The Mimic-iii and Picram Database Analysismentioning

confidence: 75%

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

Bedford

Drikite

Corbett

et al. 2021

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Digoxin is known to be less effective during states of increased sympathetic drive [ 31 ] and catecholaminergic medication use [ 32 ]. Its slower onset of action is also recognised [ 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bedford

Johnson²,

Redfern

et al. 2022

Journal of Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“… Gritsenko et al (2018) [ 18 ], Khan and Ghosh (2002) [ 19 ], Hofmann et al (2006) [ 20 ], Joseph and Ward (2000) [ 21 ], Kontoyannis et al (2001) [ 22 ], Tse et al (2001) [ 23 ], Bosch et al (2021) [ 24 ] …”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Bosch et al (2021) [ 24 ], Gritsenko et al (2018) [ 18 ], Hofmann et al (2006) [ 20 ], Kontoyannis et al (2021) [ 22 ] …”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Integrative Comparative Study Between Digoxin and Amiodarone as an Emergency Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Evidence of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zaki

Bashir

Iftikhar

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergency treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves utilizing two strategies. The first strategy normally involves permitting the atrial fibrillation to persevere as the ventricular rate is controlled. The other method involves utilizing anti-arrhythmic drugs in cardioversion and attempting to maintain sinus rhythm. Different pharmacological treatments, including digoxin and amiodarone, have been used to manage AF. A literature review on amiodarone and digoxin in the treatment of AF among patients with heart failure (HF) has shown that both drugs have potential risks. Therefore, we are conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of amiodarone and digoxin in the treatment of AF among patients with evidence of HF.A literature search of relevant articles was conducted on six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) from 2000 to 2022. The search yielded seven studies that had met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis of four studies showed that there was no significant difference in the reduction of heart rate after treatment with either amiodarone or digoxin (mean difference (MD): -5.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): -9.53 to -1.34; I 2 = 25%; p = 0.26). On the other hand, the statistical analysis showed that amiodarone had a better effect on the conversion to sinus rhythm than digoxin (63% versus 35%, respectively).Based on evidence from our meta-analysis, the clinical effect of amiodarone and digoxin in the emergency treatment of AF on heart rate control was unclear. However, amiodarone has a significant impact on the restoration of sinus rhythm compared with digoxin and can be considered the first-line drug regimen in conversion to sinus rhythm for AF patients with evidence of heart failure. However, the use of amiodarone and digoxin is complicated by adverse events and all-cause mortality.

show abstract

Amiodarone versus digoxin for rate control in critically ill patients with rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

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

An Integrative Comparative Study Between Digoxin and Amiodarone as an Emergency Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With Evidence of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About