Skip to main content
Critical Care Research and Practice logoLink to Critical Care Research and Practice
. 2014 Jan 16;2014:840615. doi: 10.1155/2014/840615

Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Critically Ill Patients

Mattia Arrigo 1, Dominique Bettex 1, Alain Rudiger 1,*
PMCID: PMC3914350  PMID: 24527212

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in ICU patients and is associated with a two- to fivefold increase in mortality. This paper provides a reappraisal of the management of AF with a special focus on critically ill patients with haemodynamic instability. AF can cause hypotension and heart failure with subsequent organ dysfunction. The underlying mechanisms are the loss of atrial contraction and the high ventricular rate. In unstable patients, sinus rhythm must be rapidly restored by synchronised electrical cardioversion (ECV). If pharmacological treatment is indicated, clinicians can choose between the rate control and the rhythm control strategy. The optimal substance should be selected depending on its potential adverse effects. A beta-1 antagonist with a very short half-life (e.g., esmolol) is an advantage for ICU patients because the effect of beta-blockade on cardiovascular stability is unpredictable in those patients. Amiodarone is commonly used in the ICU setting but has potentially severe cardiac and noncardiac side effects. Digoxin controls the ventricular response at rest, but its benefit decreases in the presence of adrenergic stress. Vernakalant converts new-onset AF to sinus rhythm in approximately 50% of patients, but data on its efficacy and safety in critically ill patients are lacking.

1. Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in patients hospitalised in intensive care units (ICUs) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality [16]. In light of the improved understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, novel therapeutic options, and recently published guidelines for AF, this paper provides a reappraisal of the topic with a special focus on the management of AF in critically ill patients with haemodynamic instability.

2. Materials and Methods

A search of the PubMed database and a review of bibliographies from selected articles was performed to identify original data relating to this topic. Articles were scrutinised regarding their study design, population evaluated, interventions, outcomes, and limitations. A special focus was on the literature available from critically ill patients. However, if such information was lacking, references from non-ICU patients were included in this narrative review. When evidence-based recommendations were not available at all personal recommendations were incorporated in this report (and highlighted accordingly) to assist the clinicians in the management of critically ill patients with AF.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Definition and Clinical Manifestation

AF is a supraventricular arrhythmia characterized by disorganized atrial depolarisations without effective atrial contractions. If AF terminates spontaneously, it is defined as paroxysmal. When AF is sustained beyond seven days or is terminated with electrical or pharmacological cardioversion it is defined as persistent. If a conversion in sinus rhythm cannot be achieved, AF is defined as permanent [5].

In critically ill patients, untreated AF can cause hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg), myocardial ischemia, and heart failure (pulmonary edema, cardiogenic shock) with subsequent tissue hypoxia (SvO2 < 65%, lactate > 2.0 mmol/l) and organ dysfunction (encephalopathy, acute kidney injury with urine output < 0.5 mL/kg/h and liver dysfunction). The underlying mechanisms of these complications are the loss of atrial contraction and the high ventricular rate, which both impair the ventricular filling. The loss of the atrial kick is particularly detrimental in patients with diastolic dysfunction, such as left ventricular hypertrophy of any cause. Left atrial pressure increases, causing pulmonary venous hypertension and subsequent pulmonary edema with dyspnea. When stroke volume deteriorates, cardiogenic shock develops [7]. In addition, the high heart rate and the secondary elevation of end-diastolic ventricular pressure increase the myocardial oxygen demands, precipitating acute myocardial ischemia. Uncontrolled tachycardia for the duration of days to weeks may cause tachycardia-induced myocardial dysfunction (tachycardiomyopathy) leading to severe systolic heart failure, which is potentially reversible after appropriate treatment [8, 9].

3.2. Diagnostic Evaluation

AF is diagnosed by a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), typically when a lack of P-waves, high-frequency fibrillation waves at rates of 350–600/min, and an irregular ventricular response (absolute arrhythmia) are observed. The ventricular rate in untreated patients with normal atrioventricular conduction is typically between 100 and 160 bpm, but normo- and bradycardic ventricular response rates are possible. The initial ECG may provide important additional information on myocardial ischemia, left-ventricular hypertrophy, or conduction disorders. When the differentiation of narrow-complex tachycardia is challenging, 6 mg of adenosine pushed intravenously can terminate a reentry tachycardia or unmask atrial flutter and AF [10]. Of note, adenosine can precipitate ventricular tachycardia in preexcitation syndromes (e.g. Wolff-Parkinson-White) by rapid anterograde conduction of AF via the accessory pathway [11]. After cardiac surgery, an atrial lead ECG from the pacemaker wire can be helpful. The evaluation of symptoms and haemodynamic consequences is the next step [1]. If AF is accompanied by acute chest pain, dyspnea, arterial hypotension, and/or cardiogenic shock, immediate action is required (see below). Transthoracic echocardiography, chest radiography, and electrolyte and serologic tests for thyroid function are required to identify the underlying cause of the AF [12]. In cardiac surgery patients, transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiography may be necessary to rule out pericardial effusion, a common trigger for AF in the early postoperative phase.

3.3. Epidemiology

Advanced age is the biggest risk factors for developing AF. The incidence and prevalence rises with age (>60 years: 1%; >80 years: 5–15%) [1318]. AF occurs in patients with cardiac disorders (hypertensive heart disease, coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, pericarditis, congenital heart disease and acquired cardiomyopathies) as well as in patients with no apparent cardiac abnormalities (lone AF) [5]. Many noncardiac diseases (thyroid disorders, pulmonary diseases, and alcohol overconsumption) are also associated with AF [19, 20]. Acute illness and surgery are associated with increased rates of AF. The incidence of new-onset AF in critically ill patients is 6–20% [2123]. In the subgroup of patients with sepsis, the incidence of new-onset AF correlates with the severity of sepsis; up to half of the patients with septic shock experience new-onset AF [24]. In cases with acute coronary artery disease, AF occurs in 6–21% of patients [25]. The highest incidence is observed in patients after open heart surgery, in particular mitral valve surgery and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, with documented rates reaching 30–40% [26, 27]. The peak incidence of AF occurs during the first 2–4 days after cardiac surgery [26]. Overall, AF is associated with cardioembolic events and heart failure, longer hospital stays, and reduced quality of life as well as a two- to fivefold increased mortality [2123, 26, 28].

3.4. Underlying Mechanisms

The complex pathophysiological mechanisms of AF have been reviewed extensively [16, 29]. To better understand the various treatment options, some basic elements of AF are summarised below. Reentry of excitation wavefronts has long been considered the main mechanism of AF. However, intensive research during the recent decades has revealed an interaction between the initiation triggers and maintenance factors of AF. Table 1 summarises the promoters of AF and what specific treatments, if any, they are amenable to [5, 26, 2932]. Clearly, these promoters of AF are different in critically ill patients compared to outpatients. Any heart disease or cardiac surgery involving sutures on the atria can induce structural remodelling of the atria, which results in inflammation, myocyte alteration, and tissue fibrosis, all of which promote AF. A few minutes after the onset of AF, an electrical remodelling process involving ion channel function and intracellular calcium homeostasis is stimulated, leading to a shortening of the refractory periods of atrial cardiomyocytes and contributing to the persistence of AF [7, 33]. Within days, alterations to the intracellular calcium homeostasis cause contractile remodelling, dysfunction, and further dilatation of the atria [8, 9, 33]. Increased sympathetic tone and systemic inflammation also play a central role in maintaining AF [10, 34]. Inflammation may lead to atrial myocarditis with subsequent electrical and structural atrial changes, resulting in the initiation and maintenance of AF [11, 35]. Because AF triggers AF, paroxysmal AF might progress to persistent and permanent AF [1, 36]. Finally, an origin of AF has been localised in the myocardial sleeves of the pulmonary veins, opening the door to new ablation techniques [12, 3741]. However, the complex mechanisms leading to this ectopic activity with bursts of rapid discharge are not yet fully understood.

Table 1.

Modifiable promoters of atrial fibrillation.

Mechanism Etiology Specific treatment options
Myocardial stretch (atrial hypertension, atrial dilatation, reduced contractility) Fluid overload
Acute mitral insufficiency
Mitral stenosis
Fluid removal (restrictive fluid administration, diuretics, renal replacement therapy)
Intra-aortic balloon pump; cardiac surgery
Valvuloplasty

Inappropriate oxygen delivery to the myocardium Myocardial ischemia
Hypovolemia
Anemia
Revascularization
Fluid challenge
Transfusion of red blood cells

Electrolyte disturbances (risk factors: diuretics, dialysis) Hypokalemia
Hypomagnesemia
Substitution of potassium (goal K+ 4.5–5.5 mmol/L)
Substitution of magnesium (goal Mg++ > 1.0 mmol/L)

Systemic and local inflammation Heart-lung machine
Sepsis
Myocarditis
Steroids; off-pump cardiosurgical techniques
Antimicrobial therapy
Immunosuppression

Adrenergic overstimulation Inotropic support
Stress (pain, anxiety)
Reduction of inotropes
Sedation; analgesia; betablockers

Endocrine disorder Elevated thyroid hormones
Pheochromocytoma
Betablockers; thyreostatic drugs
Alpha- and betablockers

Various Hypothermia Correction of hypothermia

3.5. Management of Patients with Haemodynamic Instability

The initial management of patients with haemodynamic instability includes the restoration of an adequate perfusion pressure with, depending upon the aetiology of AF, administration of fluids, vasopressors, and/or inotropes. Special attention should be addressed to sedation and analgesia, which ensure patient comfort and reduce the incidence of harmful sympathetic activation, and a sufficient oxygen supply of the myocardium must be guaranteed.

3.5.1. Electrical Cardioversion (ECV)

In patients with acute chest pain, dyspnea, or haemodynamic instability, the sinus rhythm must be rapidly restored by synchronised ECV (Figure 1). Compared to the success rate of 90% in outpatients [1318, 42], the conversion rate is much lower in critically ill patients undergoing urgent cardioversion, with published success rates as low as 30% [5, 4346]. Pretreatment with antiarrhythmic drugs facilitates ECV and reduces immediate recurrences [19, 20, 47, 48]. Chest wall impedance, left atrial size, and duration of AF are inversely related to success rate. Prior to ECV, patients should receive sedation and analgesia. Endotracheal intubation is required in patients at risk of aspiration. Anterior-posterior electrode positioning and biphasic waveforms provide higher success rates than lateral electrode positioning and monophasic waveforms [2123, 42]. In postoperative cardiosurgical patients, for whom impedance is high and electrodes are often placed unfavourably due to wound dressing and chest tubes, we recommend a single shock of 200 Joules to increase the success rate [24, 49]. A previous study demonstrated that a high initial energy reduces the incidence of tachyarrhythmic complications [25, 50]. Particular care must be taken to preserve the wound dressings and to avoid the nipples. If repeated ECV is applied, the synchronisation mode has to be switched on before every use, as this mode usually switches off after every discharge to allow immediate defibrillation if necessary. In patients with pacemakers or internal cardioverter/defibrillators (ICD), internal overdrive pacing and/or cardioversion may be attempted by the cardiologists to restore the sinus rhythm. If this is not possible, the external electrodes should be placed at least 8 cm from the aggregate. After cardioversion, the device should be checked to ensure normal function.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Management algorithm. Legend: ICU intensive care unit. Algorithm modified from [2, 4].

In patients with life-threatening symptoms, ECV is indicated even if the presence of an atrial thrombus cannot be excluded. In stable patients with AF lasting more than 48 h, a transesophageal echocardiography to exclude an atrial thrombus is recommended [26, 27, 51]. Alternatively an adequate anticoagulation regimen of 3 weeks before cardioversion is recommended [6]. After successful cardioversion the anticoagulation should be continued for at least 4 weeks to prevent cardioembolic complications due to atrial stunning [6, 26]. If ECV was not successful, pharmacological treatment is indicated as described below. Similarly, an antiarrhythmic treatment is usually required temporarily to maintain sinus rhythm after successful ECV.

3.6. Management of Hemodynamic Stable Patients

3.6.1. Rate versus Rhythm Control

Clinicians can choose between a rate control and a rhythm control strategy. The rate control approach tolerates AF but controls the ventricular response rate to improve the ventricular filling and avoid a tachycardiomyopathy. It is the treatment of choice in patients with permanent AF or in oligosymptomatic patients (Figure 1). Rate control can be accomplished with beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers (diltiazem, verapamil), digoxin, or amiodarone. 24 h telemetry should confirm that the target heart rate of less than 110 bpm at rest has been achieved [2123, 26, 28, 52]. Some patients may experience clinical improvement only after the restoration of sinus rhythm (rhythm control strategy), which can be achieved by ECV and/or drugs (see Figure 1). However, several trials in outpatients failed to show a benefit of this strategy compared to rate control only [53, 54] even in patients with congestive heart failure [55]. The lack of a survival benefit in the rhythm control arm was probably caused by the inefficacy of current antiarrhythmic drugs and their adverse effects.

3.6.2. Pharmacological Options

A multitude of substances are licensed for the pharmacologic treatment of AF, but only a few are indicated in the ICU setting (Table 2). Because the literature does not provide conclusive results on the optimal pharmacologic treatment of AF for ICU patients, clinicians should choose the optimal substance depending on its potential adverse effects [56]. Before starting an antiarrhythmic treatment, clinicians should optimise all concurring factors [5658]: electrolyte derangements (potassium, magnesium) should be corrected to upper-normal levels. Particularly magnesium is an effective, cheap and well-tolerated treatment option for AF [3, 5963].

Table 2.

Frequently used intravenous antiarrhythmic substances in the ICU.

Substance Dosing Half-life Commentary
Esmolol 1.0 mg/kg in boluses of 10–20 mg iv, followed by continuous infusion (start with 0.05 mg/kg/min, increase dose every 30 minutes if necessary) 7–10 min Good efficacy in high adrenergic state. Positive effect on cardiovascular comorbidities. Consider negative inotropic effects

Diltiazem 0.25 mg/kg iv over 2 minutes, followed by continuous infusion (10–15 mg/h) if necessary 2–4 h Longer half-life as esmolol. No beta-blocking effects. Consider negative inotropic effects

Amiodarone
150–300 mg iv, followed by a continuous infusion (900–1200 mg daily) up to 0.1 g/kg
Maintenance dose 200 mg daily
20–100 d Good efficacy, safe in patients with structural heart disease. Extreme long half-life up to 80 days. Consider extracardiac side effects

Digoxin 0.25–0.5 mg iv every 4–8 h up to 1 mg, followed by maintenance dose of 0.25 mg daily 20 h–6 d Positive inotropic effect. Reduce dose in renal dysfunction. Check digoxin plasma levels to avoid toxicity

We recommend to start with substances with a low risk profile and short half-life, such as betablockers (see below), and to escalate to other substance classes such as amiodarone only in cases of contraindications or inefficacy of the initial treatment. Generally, intravenous substances are preferred because of their faster onset and more reliable action.

Selective beta-1 receptor antagonists have negative chronotropic, dromotropic, and bathmotropic effects, slowing heart rate, delaying conduction in the atrioventricular node, and reducing myocardial excitability, respectively. Betablockers are therefore the initial treatment of choice for a rate control strategy. Adverse effects include the negative inotrope activity on the myocardium as well as vasodilatation [64] that can potentially worsen haemodynamics. Hence, a drug with a short half-life is recommended for ICU patients, for whom the effect of beta-blockade on cardiovascular stability is unpredictable. Our choice is esmolol which is eliminated by unspecific esterases and hydrolases resulting in a very short half-life of 7–10 minutes [65]. When esmolol treatment is initiated, we typically repeat intravenous esmolol injections of 10–20 mg to reach a dose of 1 mg/kg within a few minutes to assess its haemodynamic effects. If the mean arterial pressure remains above 60 mmHg, a continuous infusion is started at a rate of 0.05 mg/kg/min and is further increased in 30-minute intervals according to clinical needs. In patients with oral beta-blockers, therapy should be continued as it significantly reduces the risk of AF up to 40%, particularly in the postoperative phase [1, 60, 6668].

Amiodarone is commonly used in the ICU setting for the treatment of AF. First of all, it has less negative inotropic effects compared to beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers [69]. Secondly, amiodarone is safer for patients with structural heart disease compared to class Ic antiarrhythmic agents, such as flecainide [3]. Amiodarone is a multichannel blocker with inhibiting effects on adrenergic receptors and potassium and calcium channels. It is a highly lipophilic substance with a very large distribution volume and an extremely long half-life [43, 45]. While a single dose of 150–300 mg of amiodarone is enough to achieve pharmacological conversion to sinus rhythm in some patients, the majority of patients require long-term therapy. Therefore, a loading dose of 0.1 g/kg is required in the first 7–10 days, which can be administered intravenously or orally. Thereafter, a daily oral maintenance dose of 200 mg is recommended. Importantly, amiodarone has potential severe adverse effects [70]. Prolongation of the QT interval is typical, but torsade de pointes are uncommon (<0.5%) [71]. Hypo- and hyperthyroidism are the most common extracardiac side effects of amiodarone (>20%); thus, the thyrotropin (TSH) and free thyroid hormone (fT4, fT3) levels should be checked before treatment and every six months thereafter. Photosensitivity, corneal deposits, and neurological side effects are also frequent, while pulmonary and hepatic toxicity are rare but potentially life-threatening adverse effects of amiodarone.

Digoxin inhibits the sodium-potassium pump, increasing the calcium availability to the contractile apparatus [72]. Digoxin controls the ventricular response through direct action on the atrioventricular node and by a centrally mediated vagal stimulation. Despite its efficacy in controlling resting heart rates, it is not a converter, and its benefit decreases with adrenergic stress, limiting its efficacy in critically ill patients. On the other hand, the positive inotropic effect of digoxin may be beneficial for patients with heart failure. The plasma half-life ranges from 20 to 50 hours in patients with normal kidney function and increases up to 4–6 days in patients with end-stage renal disease [72]. In addition, drug interactions may reduce digoxin clearance and electrolyte disturbances, such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypercalcemia, and exacerbate digoxin toxicity. In critically ill patients, for whom a rapid control of heart rate is desired, we administer 0.25 mg digoxin intravenously every 4 to 8 hours up to a cumulative dose of 1.0 to 1.5 mg, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.25 mg once daily. In patients with impaired kidney function, the maintenance dose must be reduced (0.125 mg daily for a creatinine clearance of 60–90 mL/min and 0.125 every other day for a creatinine clearance of 30–60 mL/min) [72]. To avoid adverse events, regular surveillance of electrolytes and signs of digitalis toxicity (see below) are recommended. Serum digoxin levels (measured at least 6 hours after the last dose) may be helpful to corroborate the diagnosis of toxicity but are not recommended for routine use [73]. Digoxin can cause a broad spectrum of ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias, such as ectopic rhythms, pacemaker depression, or conduction abnormalities. Visual disturbances (blurred vision, flashing lights, halos, and green or yellow patterns), nausea, and vomiting are typical extracardiac manifestations of digoxin toxicity. Dialysis is an ineffective treatment for intoxication, but the administration of digoxin immune Fab is highly effective in life-threatening digoxin poisoning [74].

Nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (e.g., diltiazem, verapamil) are an alternative treatment for patients with contraindications to beta-blockers. Verapamil is more negatively inotropic than diltiazem and must be used with caution in patients with heart failure and after cardiac surgery because of the increased incidence of conduction disorders. The initial intravenous dose of diltiazem is 0.25 mg/kg over 2 min. If the response is inadequate, a second dose of 0.35 mg/kg over 2 min after 15 min or a continuous infusion of 10–15 mg/h is administered. The usual intravenous dose of verapamil is 2.5–5 mg over 2 min and may be followed by 5–10 mg after 15–30 min.

Dronedarone is an oral multichannel blocker, which compared to amiodarone has a reduced lipophilicity and no iodine components. It showed promising efficacy in multiple trials [75, 76]; however, increased mortality in patients with heart failure and risks of severe hepatotoxicity are of concern [7780]. Dronedarone has not been evaluated in critically ill patients and is not yet available for intravenous administration, limiting its use in ICU settings.

The class Ic agents flecainide and propafenone are efficacious in restoring sinus rhythm but are associated with increased mortality in patients with structural heart disease [81]. Therefore, they cannot be generally recommended in ICU patients.

Vernakalant is a new antiarrhythmic agent that targets atrial specific channels and has been approved for pharmacological cardioversion of AF of ≤7 days duration [76, 8385]. Vernakalant is given intravenously at an initial dose of 3 mg/kg over 10 min. If conversion fails, a second dose of 2 mg/kg is given after 15 min. Nausea, transient dysgeusia, and sneezing are common side effects. Vernakalant has also been studied after cardiac surgery, showing a conversion rate of nearly 50%, with a low incidence of severe side effects (hypotension and complete atrioventricular block) [86]. So far, data about the efficacy and safety of vernakalant in critically ill patients are lacking.

3.7. Long-Term Treatment after Haemodynamic Stabilisation

3.7.1. Anticoagulation

AF can be complicated by thrombus formation and embolisation. Approximately 25% of ischemic strokes are caused by cardiogenic emboli, and almost half of them occur in patients with AF [28]. The risk of these complications is even higher in critically ill patients due to ongoing inflammation and a procoagulatory state [87]. Thus, all patients with AF lasting for more than 48 hours should be evaluated for anticoagulation. The scoring systems for the stratification of cardioembolic risk are the CHADS2 [88] and the newer CHA2DS2-VASc scores (Tables 3 and 4) [89]. Although not validated for the setting of critically illness, those scores may help clinicians in the decision about antithrombotic therapy. Patients with no risk factors are at a truly low risk and do not benefit from antithrombotic therapy [8992]. All other patients should receive a long-term anticoagulation therapy unless they have a markedly increased bleeding risk [93]. We accomplish short-term anticoagulation by an intravenous infusion of unfractionated heparin. Without relevant bleeding, 10,000 IU per 24 hours is initiated 6 hours postoperatively and is increased in steps of 2500–5000 IE. Antifactor Xa activity is measured 6 hours after each dose adjustment (target 0.3 to 0.7 IU/mL). Alternatively the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) may be used (target 1.5–2.5 times the mean of the reference range). Long-term anticoagulation with oral coumarins (e.g., warfarin, phenprocoumon, acenocoumarol) is initiated when bleeding has ceased and no invasive intervention is imminent (target INR 2.0 and 3.0) [94, 95]. After an overlapping treatment, heparin is stopped when the INR is in the target range for two days. To assess the individual bleeding risk under oral anticoagulation, the HAS-BLED score was proposed (Table 5) [96, 97], although not validated for the ICU setting. The new thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran) [98] and oral factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban [99], apixaban [100, 101]) cannot be recommended in critically ill patients at the current time due to a lack of data in this particular population.

Table 3.

The CHA2DS2-VASc score: pointing system (modified from [82]).

Risk factors Points
Chronic heart failure 1 pt
Hypertension 1 pt
Age 65–74 years 1 pt
Age >75 years 2 pts
Diabetes mellitus 1 pt
Stroke/TIA 2 pts
Vascular disease 1 pt
Sex (female) 1 pt

Legend: TIA: transient ischemic attack.

Table 4.

The CHA2DS2-VASc score: theoretical risk of stroke/thromboembolism per patient year without anticoagulation (modified from [82]).

Score Yearly TE rate
0 0%
1 1.3%
2 2.2%
3 3.2%
4 4.0%
5 6.7%
6 9.8%
7 9.6%
8 6.7%
9 15.2%

Legend: TE: thromboembolism.

Table 5.

The HAS-BLED score: pointing system.

Risk factors Points
Hypertension 1 pt
Abnormal renal/liver function 1 pt each
Stroke 1 pt
Bleeding (prior) 1 pt
Labile INR 1 pt
Elderly (age >65 years) 1 pt
Drugs and alcohol 1 pt each

Score 3 indicates high risk of major bleeding (>3.7%/y)

Legend: INR international normalized ratio.

3.7.2. Further Management

Up to two-thirds of patients experiencing a first episode of AF will spontaneously convert into sinus rhythm within 24 hours [102]. Thus, maintenance therapy with an antiarrhythmic drug after the first episode of AF may often be omitted or discontinued before hospital discharge [30]. An elective cardioversion is generally recommended for patients with a recent onset AF as well as in patients who remain symptomatic despite optimal rate control. After discharge from the ICU selected patients may benefit from catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation [38, 39, 41, 103], surgical treatment of AF (Cox Maze III procedure) [104], or AV node ablation with permanent (biventricular) pacing [105, 106] to reduce symptoms and increase functional performance. A multidisciplinary approach in those cases is necessary. In patients with contraindications to anticoagulation therapy, surgical or percutaneous occlusion of the left-atrial appendage is recommended [6, 107].

4. Conclusions

AF is the most common arrhythmia in the ICU, and it can precipitate hypotension and heart failure. Despite recent advances in the field and new published guidelines, the therapeutic armamentarium for ICU patients remains limited. ECV is the treatment of choice for patients with severe symptoms, but its efficacy is limited. Amiodarone, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and digoxin are used most frequently, but their use is often complicated by adverse effects. Newer drugs, such as dronedarone and vernakalant, have not been generally introduced into the ICU setting yet because they are not available intravenously, are contraindicated with structural heart disease, or are disadvised due to haemodynamic instability. New substances with high efficacy, favourable haemodynamic effects, and a low risk profile are urgently needed.

Abbreviations

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

ECV:

Electrical cardioversion

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

ICD:

Internal cardioverter/defibrillator

INR:

International normalised ratio

ICU:

Intensive care unit

TSH:

Thyroid-stimulating hormone (thyrotropin).

Conflict of Interests

Mattia Arrigo and Dominique Bettex declare that they have no conflict of interests. Alain Rudiger received honoraria from BAXTER and AOP ORPHAN PHARMACEUTICALS, both of which are distributing esmolol in Switzerland.

Authors' Contribution

Mattia Arrigo, Dominique Bettex, and Alain Rudiger (1) have all made substantial contributions to the interpretation of the available literature and to the conception design of this review paper; (2) have been involved in drafting the paper or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) have given final approval of the version to be published. Dominique Bettex and Alain Rudiger are equally contributing last authors.

References

  • 1.Daoud EG. Management of atrial fibrillation in the post-cardiac surgery setting. Cardiology Clinics. 2004;22(1):159–166. doi: 10.1016/s0733-8651(03)00136-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lip GY, Tse H-F. Management of atrial fibrillation. The Lancet. 2007;370(9587):604–618. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61300-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sleeswijk ME, Van Noord T, Tulleken JE, Ligtenberg JJM, Girbes ARJ, Zijlstra JG. Clinical review: treatment of new-onset atrial fibrillation in medical intensive care patients: a clinical framework. Critical Care. 2007;11(6, article 233) doi: 10.1186/cc6136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Khoo CW, Lip GYH. Acute management of atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2009;135(3):849–859. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-2183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.European Heart Rhythm Association, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Camm AJ, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) European Heart Journal. 2010;31:2369–2429. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Camm AJ, Lip GYH, de Caterina R, et al. 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. European Heart Journal. 2012;33:2719–2747. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rudiger A, Harjola V-P, Müller A, et al. Acute heart failure: clinical presentation, one-year mortality and prognostic factors. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2005;7(4):662–670. doi: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2005.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Packer DL, Bardy GH, Worley SJ. Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy: a reversible form of left ventricular dysfunction. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1986;57(8):563–570. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(86)90836-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fenelon G, Wijns W, Andries E, Brugada P. Tachycardiomyopathy: mechanisms and clinical implications. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 1996;19(1):95–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb04796.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rudiger A, Niedermaier G. Unmasking atrial flutter. Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift. 2000;130(31-32)1125 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Turley AJ, Murray S, Thambyrajah J. Pre-excited atrial fibrillation triggered by intravenous adenosine: a commonly used drug with potentially life-threatening adverse effects. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2008;25(1):46–48. doi: 10.1136/emj.2007.051227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Page RL. Newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;351(23):2408–2416. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp041956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stewart S, Hart CL, Hole DJ, McMurray JJV. Population prevalence, incidence, and predictors of atrial fibrillation in the Renfrew/Paisley study. Heart. 2001;86(5):516–521. doi: 10.1136/heart.86.5.516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Go AS, Hylek EM, Phillips KA, et al. Prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: national implications for rhythm management and stroke prevention: the anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation (ATRIA) study. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001;285(18):2370–2375. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.18.2370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Miyasaka Y, Barnes ME, Gersh BJ, et al. Secular trends in incidence of atrial fibrillation in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000, and implications on the projections for future prevalence. Circulation. 2006;114(2):119–125. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.595140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heeringa J, van der Kuip DAM, Hofman A, et al. Prevalence, incidence and lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation: the Rotterdam study. European Heart Journal. 2006;27(8):949–953. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Naccarelli GV, Varker H, Lin J, Schulman KL. Increasing prevalence of atrial fibrillation and flutter in the United States. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2009;104(11):1534–1539. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lloyd-Jones DM, Wang TJ, Leip EP, et al. Lifetime risk for development of atrial fibrillation: the framingham heart study. Circulation. 2004;110(9):1042–1046. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000140263.20897.42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Klein I, Ojamaa K. Thyroid hormone and the cardiovascular system. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;344(7):501–509. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200102153440707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Samokhvalov AV, Irving HM, Rehm J. Alcohol consumption as a risk factor for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. 2010;17(6):706–712. doi: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32833a1947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Walkey AJ, Wiener RS, Ghobrial JM, Curtis LH, Benjamin EJ. Incident stroke and mortality associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized with severe sepsis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2011;306(20):2248–2255. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Goodman S, Shirov T, Weissman C. Supraventricular arrhythmias in intensive care unit patients: short and long-term consequences. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2007;104(4):880–886. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000255759.41131.05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Annane D, Sébille V, Duboc D, et al. Incidence and prognosis of sustained arrhythmias in critically III patients. The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2008;178(1):20–25. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200701-031OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Meierhenrich R, Steinhilber E, Eggermann C, et al. Incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with septic shock: a prospective observational study. Critical Care. 2010;14(3, article R108) doi: 10.1186/cc9057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schmitt J, Duray G, Gersh BJ, Hohnloser SH. Atrial fibrillation in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review of the incidence, clinical features and prognostic implications. European Heart Journal. 2009;30(9):1038–1045. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mathew JP, Fontes ML, Tudor IC, et al. A multicenter risk index for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2004;291(14):1720–1729. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.14.1720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Auer J, Weber T, Berent R, Ng C-K, Lamm G, Eber B. Risk factors of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 2005;20(5):425–431. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2005.2004123.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stewart S, Hart CL, Hole DJ, McMurray JJV. A population-based study of the long-term risks associated with atrial fibrillation: 20-year follow-up of the renfrew/paisley study. The American Journal of Medicine. 2002;113(5):359–364. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01236-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schotten U, Verheule S, Kirchhof P, Goette A. Pathophysiological mechanisms of atrial fibrillation: a translational appraisal. Physiological Reviews. 2011;91(1):265–325. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00031.2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chung MK. Cardiac surgery: postoperative arrhythmias. Critical Care Medicine. 2000;28(10):N136–N144. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200010001-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hague CW, Jr., Creswell LL, Gutterman DD, Fleisher LA. Epidemiology, mechanisms, and risks: american College of Chest Physicians guidelines for the prevention and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Chest. 2005;128(2):9S–S16. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.2_suppl.9s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Christians KK, Wu B, Quebbeman EJ, Brasel KJ. Postoperative atrial fibrillation in noncardiothoracic surgical patients. The American Journal of Surgery. 2001;182(6):713–715. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00799-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Allessie M, Ausma J, Schotten U. Electrical, contractile and structural remodeling during atrial fibrillation. Cardiovascular Research. 2002;54(2):230–246. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00258-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Issac TT, Dokainish H, Lakkis NM. Role of inflammation in initiation and perpetuation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of the published data. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007;50(21):2021–2028. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Korantzopoulos P, Kolettis T, Siogas K, Goudevenos J. Atrial fibrillation and electrical remodeling: the potential role of inflammation and oxidative stress. Medical Science Monitor. 2003;9(9):RA225–RA229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wijffels MC, Kirchhof CJ, Dorland R, Allessie MA. Atrial fibrillation begets atrial fibrillation: a study in awake chronically instrumented goats. Circulation. 1995;92(7):1954–1968. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.92.7.1954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC, et al. Spontaneous initiation of atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;339(10):659–666. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199809033391003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Oral H, Pappone C, Chugh A, et al. Circumferential pulmonary-vein ablation for chronic atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;354(9):934–941. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Khan MN, Jaïs P, Cummings J, et al. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(17):1778–1785. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wazni OM, Marrouche NF, Martin DO, et al. Radiofrequency ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(21):2634–2640. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.21.2634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cosedis Nielsen J, Johannessen A, Raatikainen P, et al. Radiofrequency ablation as initial therapy in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;367:1587–1595. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kirchhof P, Eckardt L, Loh P, et al. Anterior-posterior versus anterior-lateral electrode positions for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomised trial. The Lancet. 2002;360(9342):1275–1279. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11315-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Holt DW, Tucker GT, Jackson PR, Storey GCA. Amiodarone pharmacokinetics. The American Heart Journal. 1983;106(4):840–847. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(83)90006-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kanji S, Williamson DR, Yaghchi BM, Albert M, McIntyre L. Epidemiology and management of atrial fibrillation in medical and noncardiac surgical adult intensive care unit patients. Journal of Critical Care. 2012;27:326.e1–326.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stäubli M, Bircher J, Galeazzi RL, Remund H, Studer H. Serum concentrations of amiodarone during long term therapy: relation to dose, efficacy and toxicity. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1983;24:485–494. doi: 10.1007/BF00609891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mayr A, Ritsch N, Knotzer H, et al. Effectiveness of direct-current cardioversion for treatment of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, in particular atrial fibrillation, in surgical intensive care patients. Critical Care Medicine. 2003;31(2):401–405. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000048627.39686.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Opolski G, Stanisawska J, Gorecki A, Wiecicka GS, Torbicki A, Kraska T. Amiodarone in restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after unsuccessful direct-current cardioversion. Clinical Cardiology. 1997;20(4):337–340. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960200407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sticherling C, Behrens S, Kamke W, Stahn A, Zabel M. Comparison of acute and long-term effects of single-dose amiodarone and verapamil for the treatment of immediate recurrences of atrial fibrillation after transthoracic cardioversion. Europace. 2005;7(6):546–553. doi: 10.1016/j.eupc.2005.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Glover BM, Walsh SJ, McCann CJ, et al. Biphasic energy selection for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. The BEST AF Trial. Heart. 2008;94(7):884–887. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.120782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gallagher MM, Yap YG, Padula M, Ward DE, Rowland E, Camm AJ. Arrhythmic complications of electrical cardioversion: relationship to shock energy. International Journal of Cardiology. 2008;123(3):307–312. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Klein AL, Grimm RA, Murray RD, et al. Use of transesophageal echocardiography to guide cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;344(19):1411–1420. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200105103441901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Van Gelder IC, Groenveld HF, Crijns HJGM, et al. Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362(15):1363–1373. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wyse DG, Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347(23):1825–1833. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Van Gelder IC, Hagens VE, Bosker HA, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;347(23):1834–1840. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358:2667–2677. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dunning J, Treasure T, Versteegh M, Nashef SAM. Guidelines on the prevention and management of de novo atrial fibrillation after cardiac and thoracic surgery. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2006;30(6):852–872. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tarditi DJ, Hollenberg SM. Cardiac arrhythmias in the intensive care unit. Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2006;27(3):221–229. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-945525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Seguin P, Launey Y. Atrial fibrillation is not just an artefact in the ICU. Critical Care. 2010;14(4, article 182) doi: 10.1186/cc9093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Miller S, Crystal E, Garfinkle M, Lau C, Lashevsky I, Connolly SJ. Effects of magnesium on atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Heart. 2005;91(5):618–623. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2004.033811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Burgess DC, Kilborn MJ, Keech AC. Interventions for prevention of post-operative atrial fibrillation and its complications after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. European Heart Journal. 2006;27(23):2846–2857. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sleeswijk ME, Tulleken JE, Van Noord T, Meertens JHJM, Ligtenberg JJM, Zijlstra JG. Efficacy of magnesium-amiodarone step-up scheme in critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: a prospective observational study. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 2008;23(1):61–66. doi: 10.1177/0885066607310181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Ganga HV, Noyes A, White CM, Kluger J. Magnesium adjunctive therapy in atrial arrhythmias. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2013;36:1308–1318. doi: 10.1111/pace.12189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Moran JL, Gallagher J, Peake SL, Cunningham DN, Salagaras M, Leppard P. Parenteral magnesium sulfate versus amiodarone in the therapy of atrial tachyarrhythmias: a prospective, randomized study. Critical Care Medicine. 1995;23(11):1816–1824. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199511000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Murthy VS, Hwang TF, Zagar ME. Cardiovascular pharmacology of ASL-8052, an ultra-short acting β blocker. European Journal of Pharmacology. 1983;94(1-2):43–51. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(83)90440-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Garnock-Jones KP. Esmolol: a review of its use in the short-term treatment of tachyarrhythmias and the short-term control of tachycardia and hypertension. Drugs. 2012;72(1):109–132. doi: 10.2165/11208210-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ommen SR, Odell JA, Stanton MS. Atrial arrhythmias after cardiothoracic surgery. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;336(20):1429–1434. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199705153362006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Crystal E, Connolly SJ, Sleik K, Ginger TJ, Yusuf S. Interventions on prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2002;106(1):75–80. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000021113.44111.3e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Mooss AN, Wurdeman RL, Mohiuddin SM, et al. Esmolol versus diltiazem in the treatment of postoperative atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter after open heart surgery. The American Heart Journal. 2000;140(1):176–180. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2000.106917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Delle Karth G, Geppert A, Neunteufl T, et al. Amiodarone versus diltiazem for rate control in critically ill patients with atrial tachyarrhythmias. Critical Care Medicine. 2001;29(6):1149–1153. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200106000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Zimetbaum P. Amiodarone for atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;356(9):935–941. doi: 10.1056/NEJMct065916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kaufman ES, Zimmermann PA, Wang T, et al. Risk of proarrhythmic events in the atrial fibrillation follow-up investigation of rhythm management (AFFIRM) study: a multivariate analysis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004;44(6):1276–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Yang EH, Shah S, Criley JM. Digitalis toxicity: a fading but crucial complication to recognize. The American Journal of Medicine. 2012;125(4):337–343. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Jelliffe RW. Some comments and suggestions concerning population pharmacokinetic modeling, especially of digoxin, and its relation to clinical therapy. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. 2012;34:368–377. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31825c88bb. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Antman EM, Wenger TL, Butler VP, Jr., Haber E, Smith TW. Treatment of 150 cases of life-threatening digitalis intoxication with digoxin-specific Fab antibody fragments. Final report of a multicenter study. Circulation. 1990;81(6):1744–1752. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.81.6.1744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Hohnloser SH, Crijns HJGM, van Eickels M, et al. Effect of dronedarone on cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360(7):668–678. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Dobrev D, Nattel S. New antiarrhythmic drugs for treatment of atrial fibrillation. The Lancet. 2010;375(9721):1212–1223. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60096-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Connolly SJ, Camm AJ, Halperin JL, et al. Dronedarone in high-risk permanent atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(24):2268–2276. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1109867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Nattel S. Dronedarone in atrial fibrillation: jekyll and hyde? The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(24):2321–2322. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1111997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ezekowitz MD. Maintaining sinus rhythm: making treatment better than the disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(10):1039–1041. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe078148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, McMurray JJV, et al. Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358:2678–2687. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo: the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1991;324(12):781–788. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199103213241201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Lip GYH, Frison L, Halperin JL, Lane DA. Identifying patients at high risk for stroke despite anticoagulation: a comparison of contemporary stroke risk stratification schemes in an anticoagulated atrial fibrillation cohort. Stroke. 2010;41(12):2731–2738. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.590257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Roy D, Pratt CM, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Vernakalant hydrochloride for rapid conversion of atrial fibrillation: a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Circulation. 2008;117(12):1518–1525. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.723866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Pratt CM, Roy D, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Usefulness of vernakalant hydrochloride injection for rapid conversion of atrial fibrillation. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2010;106(9):1277–1283. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.06.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Camm AJ, Capucci A, Hohnloser SH, et al. A randomized active-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of vernakalant to amiodarone in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;57(3):313–321. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Kowey PR, Dorian P, Mitchell LB, et al. Vernakalant hydrochloride for the rapid conversion of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Circulation. 2009;2(6):652–659. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.109.870204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Watson T, Shantsila E, Lip GY. Mechanisms of thrombogenesis in atrial fibrillation: virchow’s triad revisited. The Lancet. 2009;373(9658):155–166. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60040-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, Boechler M, Rich MW, Radford MJ. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001;285(22):2864–2870. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.22.2864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Lip GYH, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJGM. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263–272. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-1584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Olesen JB, Torp-Pedersen C, Hansen ML, Lip GYH. The value of the CHA2DS2-VASc score for refining stroke risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHADS2 score 0-1: a nationwide cohort study. Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2012;107:1172–1179. doi: 10.1160/TH12-03-0175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.van Staa TP, Setakis E, di Tanna GL, Lane DA, Lip GYH. A comparison of risk stratification schemes for stroke in 79 884 atrial fibrillation patients in general practice. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2011;9(1):39–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04085.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Abu-Assi E, Otero-Raviña F, Allut Vidal G, et al. Comparison of the reliability and validity of four contemporary risk stratification schemes to predict thromboembolism in non-anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. International Journal of Cardiology. 2013;166(1):205–209. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.10.096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Healey JS, Connolly SJ, Gold MR, et al. Subclinical atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;366(2):120–129. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;146(12):857–867. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Mant J, Hobbs FR, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2007;370(9586):493–503. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61233-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJGM, Lip GYH. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the euro heart survey. Chest. 2010;138(5):1093–1100. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Lip GYH, Frison L, Halperin JL, Lane DA. Comparative validation of a novel risk score for predicting bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile INR, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) score. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2011;57(2):173–180. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;361(12):1139–1151. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(10):883–891. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Connolly SJ, Eikelboom J, Joyner C, et al. Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;364(9):806–817. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1007432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(11):981–992. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Danias PG, Caulfield TA, Weigner MJ, Silverman DI, Manning WJ. Likelihood of spontaneous conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998;31(3):588–592. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00534-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Wazni O, Wilkoff B, Saliba W. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(24):2296–2304. doi: 10.1056/NEJMct1109977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Cox JL, Jaquiss RDB, Schuessler RB, Boineau JP. Modification of the maze procedure for atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation. II. Surgical technique of the maze III procedure. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1995;110(2):485–495. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70245-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Chatterjee NA, Upadhyay GA, Ellenbogen KA, McAlister FA, Choudhry NK, Singh JP. Atrioventricular nodal ablation in atrial fibrillation a meta-analysis and systematic review. Circulation. 2012;5(1):68–76. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.111.967810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Chatterjee NA, Upadhyay GA, Ellenbogen KA, Hayes DL, Singh JP. Atrioventricular nodal ablation in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of biventricular vs. right ventricular pacing mode. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2012;14:661–667. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfs036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2009;374(9689):534–542. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61343-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Critical Care Research and Practice are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES