Rate control and sinus rhythm maintenance in atrial fibrillation: national trends in medication use, 1980-1996

A Comparison of Rate Control Agents for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: Follow-Up Investigation of the AFFIRM Study

There are limited data from randomized controlled trials comparing rate control agents in atrial fibrillation. Patient-level data from the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial was used to compare outcomes in patients randomized to the rate control arm who were treated with a single rate control agent at baseline. The rate control agents used were beta-blockers, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and digoxin. The independent variable for this analysis was the initial study drug used and the dependent variables were time to first hospitalization and time to death from any cause. We analyzed 1,144 out of 2,027 participants assigned to the rate control group who were on a single rate control agent at the start of the trial. There were 485 (42.5%) participants in the beta-blocker group, 344 (30%) in the calcium channel blocker group, and 315 (27.5%) in the digoxin group. All hospitalization and all-cause mortality occurred in 55.9% and 12.5% of those in the beta-blocker group, 58.4% and 16.7% in the calcium channel blocker group, and 55.2% and 21.1% in the digoxin group, respectively. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences in time to hospitalization or death for any group. In the AFFIRM trial, the initial rate control drug used was not associated with statistically significant differences in time to hospitalization or death after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. There is limited data at present to guide the selection of rate control agents in patients with atrial fibrillation.

WITHDRAWN: Pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation and flutter

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the commonest cardiac dysrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are two approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation: controlling the ventricular rate or converting to sinus rhythm in the expectation that this would abolish its adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in adults on the annual risk of stroke, peripheral embolism, and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (2000 to 2002), EMBASE (1998 to 2002), CINAHL (1982 to 2002), Web of Science (1981 to 2002). We hand searched the following journals: Circulation (1997 to 2002), Heart (1997 to 2002), European Heart Journal (1997-2002), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (1997-2002) and selected abstracts published on the web site of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (2001, 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of pharmacological cardioversion versus rate control in adults (>18 years) with acute, paroxysmal or sustained atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, of any duration and of any aetiology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Trial quality was assessed and the data were entered into RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies AFFIRM (n=4060) and PIAF (n=252). We found no difference in mortality between rhythm control and rate control relative risk 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.31).Both studies show significantly higher rates of hospitalisation and adverse events in the rhythm control group and no difference in quality of life between the two treatment groups.In AFFIRM there was a similar incidence of ischaemic stroke, bleeding and systemic embolism in the two groups. Certain malignant dysrhythmias were significantly more likely to occur in the rhythm control group. There were similar scores of cognitive assessment.In PIAF, cardioverted patients enjoyed an improved exercise tolerance but there was no overall benefit in terms of symptom control or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm is superior to rate control. Rhythm control is associated with more adverse effects and increased hospitalisation. It does not reduce the risk of stroke. The conclusions cannot be generalised to all people with atrial fibrillation. Most of the patients included in these studies were relatively older (>60 years) with significant cardiovascular risk factors.

Impact of Awareness and Patterns of Nonhospitalized Atrial Fibrillation on the Risk of Mortality: The Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study

BACKGROUND

Although mortality associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported to decrease over prior decades, the mortality risk of asymptomatic, nonhospitalized AF has not been examined.

HYPOTHESIS

Asymptomatic, nonhospitalized AF is associated with an increased risk of death.

METHODS

This analysis included 25,976 participants (mean age, 65 ± 9.4 years; 55% female; 38% black) from the Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences (REGARDS) study. Atrial fibrillation was detected on the baseline electrocardiogram (ECG AF) or by self-reported history. Atrial fibrillation unawareness was defined as present if ECG evidence of the arrhythmia was detected but no self-reported history was reported. All-cause mortality was confirmed during follow-up through March 31, 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 2208 (8.5%) participants had AF at baseline (ECG: n = 371/17%; self-reported: n = 1837/83%). Over a median follow-up of 7.6 years, 3481 deaths occurred. In a multivariable Cox regression model, AF was associated with a 32% increased risk of mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.46). Risk of death was higher among those with ECG AF (hazard ratio: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.42-2.07) compared with self-reported cases (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.03-1.29). Those who were unaware of their AF diagnosis had a 94% increased risk of death (95% CI: 1.50-2.52) compared with AF participants who were aware of their diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic, nonhospitalized AF is associated with an increased risk of mortality in the general population. Mortality is higher in those with ECG-confirmed cases and among those who are unaware of their diagnosis.

Trends in utilization of management strategies for newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients in the United States: 1999 to 2008

OBJECTIVE

To describe the trend in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment strategies in newly diagnosed AF patients between 1999 and 2008.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective cohort study of commercial health plans claims data. Newly diagnosed adult AF patients with ≥1 claim for an AF-related intervention within 12 months of diagnosis were identified. Based on initial treatment, patients were classified into pharmacotherapy or nonpharmacotherapy groups. Pharmacotherapy group was subcategorized into rate-control or rhythm-control groups. Linear regression to assess linear trend and multinomial logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with treatment choice were conducted.

RESULTS

Three thousand ninety-four newly diagnosed AF patients were identified. Eighty percent of these patients were initiated on pharmacotherapy with the majority (84%) receiving rate-control medications only. Relative distribution of the 3 treatment groups remained similar over the study period. However, within the rate-control group, the use of beta blockers increased significantly (P < .001). Treatment with nonpharmacotherapy over rate-control medications was higher in males but lower in patients aged ≥80 (relative risk ratio [RRR]: 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-2.20 and RRR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.77, respectively). Having stroke and congestive heart failure significantly affected the treatment choice between nonpharmacotherapy and rate-control medications.

CONCLUSION

Medication therapy, especially rate-control strategies, remains the preferred initial therapy of choice.

Trends in US hospitalization rates and rhythm control therapies following publication of the AFFIRM and RACE trials

INTRODUCTION

The impact of trials comparing rate versus rhythm control for AF on subsequent use of rhythm control therapies and hospitalizations at a national level has not been described.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We queried the Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project on the frequency of hospital admissions and performance of specific rhythm control procedures from 1998-2006. We analyzed trends in hospitalization for AF as principal diagnosis before and after the publication of key rate versus rhythm trials in 2002. We also reviewed the use of electrical cardioversion and catheter ablation as principal procedures during hospital admissions for any cause and for AF as principal diagnosis. We additionally appraised the overall outpatient utilization of antiarrhythmic drugs during this same time frame using IMS Health's National Prescription Audit.™ Admissions for AF as a principal diagnosis increased at 5%/year from 1998-2002. Following publication of the AFFIRM and RACE trials in 2002, admissions declined by 2%/year from 2002-2004, before rising again from 2004-2006. In-hospital electrical cardioversion followed a similar pattern. National prescription volumes for antiarrhythmic drugs grew at <1% per year from 2002 to 2006, with a marked decline in the use of class I-A agents, while catheter ablations during admissions for AF as the principal diagnosis increased at 30% per year.

CONCLUSION

The use of rhythm control therapies in the US declined significantly in the first few years after publication of AFFIRM and RACE. This trend reversed by 2005, at which time rapid growth in the use of catheter ablation for AF was observed.

Heart rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation referred for exercise testing

Clinical practice guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) recommended a heart rate (HR) of 60 to 80 beats/min at rest and 90 to 115 at moderate exercise. The degree to which HR control at rest and with exercise in patients with AF complies with these recommendations is unknown. HR at rest and at peak exercise was retrospectively examined in 1,097 consecutive patients with AF referred for exercise myocardial perfusion imaging. In a subgroup of 195 patients, HR was also measured at an intermediate "moderate" level. Median HR at rest was 80 beats/min, at the upper end of the recommended range of 60 to 80. Only patients administered a beta blocker (BB; 31%) had lower (p <0.001) median HRs at rest. Median HR at moderate exercise was 128 beats/min, higher than the range of 90 to 115 recommended by the guidelines. Only patients administered a BB had significantly reduced HRs (p <0.003) at moderate exercise. Median peak exercise HR was 147 beats/min. Forty-five percent of patients exceeded their age-predicted maximal HR. Patients administered BBs were significantly less likely (p <0.01) to exceed their age-predicted maximal HR. In conclusion, in patients with AF, HR control at rest and during exercise often did not comply with guideline recommendations. Regimens including a BB were more effective in achieving HR control.

The cost comparison of rhythm and rate control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation

Our sub study was designed to analyze the cost effectiveness of two alternative treatment strategies with a view to improved allocation of the limited therapeutic resources. To that effect we conducted detailed analysis of the related costs and other relevant data collected in the course of the HOT CAFE study.

METHODS

The prospective costs related to 205 patients randomly assigned to rhythm or rate control were traced over a 12 month period. Since, both strategies produced similar clinical outcomes a cost minimization analysis was undertaken. The cost of diagnostic and treatment procedures, including hospitalization, outpatient visits, drugs and physicians consultations were estimated for both groups.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 205 patients (mean age 60.8 year; 35% females). A hundred and one patients were randomly assigned to the rate control group with the pharmacological heart rate frequency optimization treatment combined with Holter monitoring. A hundred and four patients were randomized to sinus rhythm (SR) restoration with its subsequent maintenance with sequential antiarrhythmic drug treatment. There was no significant difference in the composite primary end-point (all-cause mortality, number of thromboembolic and major bleeding events). The hospital admissions rate was significantly higher in the rhythm control than the rate control arm (202 vs. 5, respectively). The conservative strategy involving pharmacological ventricular rate control proved to be less costly than rhythm control (1225 euros vs. 2526 euros; p<0.001). The main cost driver behind the established difference was the cardioversion related hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost effectiveness appraisal seems to have supported the rate control strategy as less costly due to the lower hospitalization rate as a major cost carrier.

Serial antiarrhythmic therapy: role of amiodarone in prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence--a lesson from the HOT CAFE Polish Study

Antiarrhythmic drug prophylaxis is known to improve long-term success of electrical cardioversion (CV) in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). This prospective study evaluates the efficacy of sequential antiarrhythmic drug therapy in sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance after successful elective CV in patients with persistent nonvalvular AF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty-eight patients (61+/-8 years old) with persistent AF underwent CV. Mean AF duration preceding CV was 268+/-99 days. Following SR restoration, patients were treated sequentially with either of the following antiarrhythmic drugs: propafenone, sotalol or disopyramide. Where arrhythmia recurred, patients received another CV and a new drug from the range defined above. Where such treatment failed, patients were loaded with 14.0- to 16.0-gram doses of amiodarone and a third CV was performed. If the first CV failed to restore SR, patients received a loading dose of amiodarone followed by another CV. When successful, amiodarone was administered on continuous basis.

RESULTS

The first CV proved successful in 55.5% of patients. During 1-year of follow-up, 31 patients (43.7%) presented with SR were treated with one antiarrhythmic agent (median does not exist). Application of the second drug proved to be effective in 6 patients (15.0%; median 13 days). Amiodarone was administered as the third antiarrhythmic agent to patients who had AF recurrence on the first two antiarrhythmic agents (propafenone, sotalol or disopyramide). It proved to be effective in 18 patients (52.9%; median does not exist) remaining free from AF for a period of 1 year as of commencement of the sequential antiarrhythmic therapy. Fifty-seven patients, in whom the first CV was ineffective, received amiodarone. During the loading period, SR was restored in 7 patients (12.3%). The remaining 50 patients underwent repeated CV, with SR restored in 37 (74.0%) of them. Long-term amiodarone treatment maintained SR in 30 (68.2%) patients during the follow-up period. Amiodarone helped to maintain SR in a total of 56.5% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone seems to be the drug most effectively restoring and maintaining SR in patients with persistent AF resistant to CV and standard antiarrhythmic drug prophylaxis.

Pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation and flutter

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the commonest cardiac dysrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are two approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation: controlling the ventricular rate or converting to sinus rhythm in the expectation that this would abolish its adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in adults on the annual risk of stroke, peripheral embolism, and mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (2000 to 2002), EMBASE (1998 to 2002), CINAHL (1982 to 2002), Web of Science (1981 to 2002). We hand searched the following journals: Circulation (1997 to 2002), Heart (1997 to 2002), European Heart Journal (1997-2002), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (1997-2002) and selected abstracts published on the web site of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (2001, 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of pharmacological cardioversion versus rate control in adults (>18 years) with acute, paroxysmal or sustained atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, of any duration and of any aetiology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Trial quality was assessed and the data were entered into RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies AFFIRM (n=4060) and PIAF (n=252). We found no difference in mortality between rhythm control and rate control relative risk 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.31). Both studies show significantly higher rates of hospitalisation and adverse events in the rhythm control group and no difference in quality of life between the two treatment groups. In AFFIRM there was a similar incidence of ischaemic stroke, bleeding and systemic embolism in the two groups. Certain malignant dysrhythmias were significantly more likely to occur in the rhythm control group. There were similar scores of cognitive assessment. In PIAF, cardioverted patients enjoyed an improved exercise tolerance but there was no overall benefit in terms of symptom control or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm is superior to rate control. Rhythm control is associated with more adverse effects and increased hospitalisation. It does not reduce the risk of stroke. The conclusions cannot be generalised to all people with atrial fibrillation. Most of the patients included in these studies were relatively older (>60 years) with significant cardiovascular risk factors.

Rate control vs rhythm control in patients with nonvalvular persistent atrial fibrillation: the results of the Polish How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (HOT CAFE) Study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The relative risks and benefits of strategies of rate control vs rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain to be fully explored.

DESIGN

The How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (HOT CAFE) Polish trial was designed to evaluate in a randomized, multicenter, and prospective manner the feasibility and long-term outcomes of rate control vs rhythm control strategies in patients with persistent AF.

PATIENTS

Our study population comprised 205 patients (134 men and 71 women; mean [+/- SD] age, 60.8 +/- 11.2 years) with a mean AF duration of 273.7 +/- 112.4 days. The mean observation period was 1.7 +/- 0.4 years. One hundred one patients were randomly assigned to the rate control group and received rate-slowing therapy guided by repeated 24-h Holter monitoring. Direct current cardioversion and atrioventricular junctional ablation with pacemaker placement were alternative nonpharmacologic strategies for patients with tachycardia that was resistant to medical therapy. One hundred four patients were randomized to sinus rhythm restoration and maintenance using serial cardioversion supported by a predefined stepwise antiarrhythmic drug regimen (ie, disopyramide, propafenone, sotalol, and amiodarone). In both groups, thromboembolic prophylaxis followed current guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

At the end of follow-up, 63.5% of patients in the rhythm control arm remained in sinus rhythm. No significant differences in the composite end point (ie, all-cause mortality, number of thromboembolic events, or major bleeding) were found between the rate control group and the rhythm control group (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 22.3; p > 0.71). The incidence of hospital admissions was much lower in the rate control arm (12% vs 74%, respectively; p < 0.001). New York Heart Association functional class improved in both study groups, while mean exercise tolerance, as measured by the maximal treadmill workload, improved only in the rhythm control group (5.2 +/- 5.1 vs 7.6 +/- 3.3 metabolic equivalents, respectively; p < 0.001). The rhythm control strategy led to an increased mean left ventricular fractional shortening (29 +/- 7% vs 31 +/- 7%, respectively; p < 0.01). One episode of pulmonary embolism occurred in the rate control group despite oral anticoagulation therapy, while three patients in the rhythm control arm of the study experienced ischemic strokes (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

The Polish HOT CAFE study revealed no significant differences in major end points between the rate control group and the rhythm control group.

The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate approaches used to control rate, the effectiveness of rate control, and switches from one drug class to another in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study.

BACKGROUND

The AFFIRM study showed that atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated effectively with rate control and anticoagulation, but drug efficacy to control rate remains uncertain.

METHODS

Patients (n = 2,027) randomized to rate control in the AFFIRM study were given rate-controlling drugs by their treating physicians. Standardized rate-control efficacy criteria developed a priori included resting heart rate and 6-min walk tests and/or ambulatory electrocardiographic results.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 3.5 +/- 1.3 years. Initial treatment included a beta-adrenergic blocker (beta-blocker) alone in 24%, a calcium channel blocker alone in 17%, digoxin alone in 16%, a beta-blocker and digoxin in 14%, or a calcium channel blocker and digoxin in 14% of patients. Overall rate control was achieved in 70% of patients given beta-blockers as the first drug (with or without digoxin), 54% with calcium channel blockers (with or without digoxin), and 58% with digoxin alone. Adequate overall rate control was achieved in 58% of patients with the first drug or combination. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between first drug class and several clinical variables. There were more changes to beta-blockers than to the other two-drug classes (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rate control in AF is possible in the majority of patients with AF. Beta-blockers were the most effective drugs. To achieve the goal of adequate rate control in all patients, frequent medication changes and drug combinations were needed.

Pharmacological rate control of atrial fibrillation

To control ventricular rate in patients with AF, physicians should seek to control heart rate at rest and with exertion. The goal has to be achieved while minimizing costs and adverse effects. For emergency use, i.v. diltiazem or esmolol are drugs useful because of their rapid onset of action. They have to be used with caution in patients with concomitant left ventricular failure symptoms, however. For most patients with AF, chronic control of the ventricular rate can be achieved with one drug. For the chronic control of ventricular rate in patients with AF and normal ventricular function, diltiazem, atenolol, are metoprolol are probably the drugs of choice. For patients with AF and structurally abnormal hearts, atenolol, metoprolol, or carvedilol are appropriate choices. Adequate ventricular rate control by pharmacological agents should be evaluated by either 24-hour Holter monitoring or a submaximal stress test to determine the resting and exercise ventricular rate. If the mean ventricular rate is not close to 80 beats per minute, or the heart rate on moderate exertion is not between 90 to 115 beats per minute, a second agent to control the rate should be added. Excessive reductions in ventricular rates that could limit exercise tolerance should be avoided.

Left ventricular performance during acute rate control in atrial fibrillation: the importance of heart rate and agent used

BACKGROUND

The relation between heart rate and left ventricular function during rate control in atrial fibrillation is incompletely understood.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients (age 67 +/- 11 years) with symptomatic recent onset rapid atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular rate (> 110 bpm) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous digoxin (13 mcg/kg) or intravenous diltiazem (0.25 mg/kg bolus plus a maintenance infusion). A portable radionuclide detector was used to collect validated measures of relative left ventricular volumes, along with heart rate data, every 15 seconds for 6 hours.

RESULTS

Heart rate decreased significantly at 15 minutes and 180 minutes in the diltiazem group (from 133 +/- 18 bpm to 111 +/- 26 bpm [P <.01] to 94 +/- 24 bpm [P <.001]) but not in the digoxin group (from 129 +/- 18 bpm to 126 +/- 17 bpm [P = NS] to 118 +/- 15 bpm [P = NS]). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved in both groups to a similar extent (from 39 +/- 10% to 50 +/- 8%, [P <.05] after diltiazem, and from 38 +/- 8% to 52 +/- 11% [P <.05] after digoxin at baseline vs 180 minutes, respectively). The ejection fraction vs heart rate slope was steeper in the digoxin group than in the diltiazem group (-0.34 +/- 0.18 vs -0.16 +/- 0.17, P =.048) indicating a more pronounced improvement in ejection fraction per unit decrease in heart rate.

CONCLUSION

In patients with acute atrial fibrillation, digoxin led to similar improvements in ejection fraction compared to diltiazem despite a slower and less potent heart rate slowing.

Effects of diltiazem and esmolol on cycle length and spontaneous conversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Calcium channel blocking agents have been shown to prolong the duration of atrial fibrillation. This study compared the effects of intravenous diltiazem and esmolol on the cycle length and conversion rate of pacing-induced atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 41 adults without structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation was induced by rapid atrial pacing. After 3 minutes, either diltiazem (n = 13), esmolol (n = 15), or saline (n = 13) was infused. In the diltiazem group, the atrial fibrillation cycle length shortened by a mean of 43 milliseconds and became significantly shorter than in the control group, while the atrial fibrillation cycle length in the esmolol group did not change. Spontaneous termination of atrial fibrillation occurred significantly less often in the diltiazem group (23%) than in the esmolol (67%, P < 0.05) or placebo groups (77%, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diltiazem shortens the atrial fibrillation cycle length and lowers the probability of spontaneous conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. These results suggest that the use of diltiazem for acute rate control may unwittingly prolong the duration of recent-onset atrial fibrillation.

Inappropriate use of digoxin in older hospitalized heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Older adults are more likely to suffer from the adverse effects of digoxin. Studies have described the inappropriate use of digoxin in various populations. The objective of this study was to determine the correlates of inappropriate digoxin use in older heart failure patients.

METHODS

We studied older hospitalized heart failure patients with documented left ventricular (LV) function evaluation and electrocardiography. Digoxin use was considered inappropriate if patients had preserved LV systolic function (ejection fraction greater > or =40%) or if they had no atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared baseline patient characteristics by indication for digoxin and tested statistical significance using Pearson's chi-square analysis and Student's t tests. Using logistic regression, we determined the correlates of inappropriate use and initiation of digoxin.

RESULTS

Subjects (N = 603) had a mean age of 79 (+/-7) years; 59% were women, and 18% were African American. A total of 376 patients (62%) were discharged on digoxin, and 223 (37%) had no indication for its use. Half of the patients without an indication for digoxin received the drug. Of 132 patients without an indication and not already on digoxin, 38 (29%) were initiated on it. After adjustment for various patient and care characteristics, prior digoxin use (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 11.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.72-23.02) and pulse > or =100/min (adjusted OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.10-4.94) were associated with inappropriate digoxin use. Pulse > or =100/min was also associated with inappropriate initiation of the drug (adjusted OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.28-6.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate use of digoxin was common and was associated with prior use. Tachycardia was associated with inappropriate use and initiation. Electrocardiography and echocardiography should be performed in all older heart failure patients. Digoxin therapy should not be initiated or continued in patients without any evidence of LV systolic dysfunction or chronic AF.

Prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. A meta-analysis of trials of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs

OBJECTIVE

Appropriate use of drugs to prevent thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) involves comparing the patient's risk of stroke and risk of hemorrhage. This review summarizes the evidence regarding the efficacy of these medications.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs used to prevent thromboembolism in adults with nonpostoperative AF. Articles were identified through the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL database and MEDLINE until May 1998.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven articles met criteria for inclusion in this review. Warfarin was more efficacious than placebo for primary stroke prevention (aggregate odds ratio [OR] of stroke = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19, 0.48), with moderate evidence of more major bleeding (OR 1.90; 95% CI 0.89, 4.04). Aspirin was inconclusively more efficacious than placebo for stroke prevention (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19, 1.65), with inconclusive evidence regarding more major bleeds (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.37, 1.77). For primary prevention, assuming a baseline risk of 45 strokes per 1,000 patient-years, warfarin could prevent 30 strokes at the expense of only 6 additional major bleeds. Aspirin could prevent 17 strokes, without increasing major hemorrhage. In direct comparison, there was evidence suggesting fewer strokes among patients on warfarin than among patients on aspirin (aggregate OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43, 0.96), with only suggestive evidence for more major hemorrhage (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.77,3.35). However, in younger patients, with a mean age of 65 years, the absolute reduction in stroke rate with warfarin compared with aspirin was low (5.5 per 1,000 person-years) compared with an older group (15 per 1,000 person-years).

CONCLUSION

In general, the evidence strongly supports warfarin for patients with AF at average or greater risk of stroke. Aspirin may prove to be useful in subgroups with a low risk of stroke, although this is not definitively supported by the evidence.