The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines Program: A Look Back Over the Last 10 Years and a Look Forward

Catch-AF-Early Diagnosis of Symptomatic Arrythmias in the Waiting Period Prior to Seeing a Cardiologist in Victoria, British Columbia

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Given its often-paroxysmal nature, screening at a single time point, using a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) or a Holter monitor, has limited benefit. The AliveCor KardiaMobile device is a validated ECG recorder that can be used for patient-directed arrhythmia diagnosis and symptom-rhythm correlation. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether using the KardiaMobile device could reduce the time-to-diagnosis, for AF as well as other arrhythmias. We hypothesized that providing patients with a KardiaMobile device during their waiting period for specialist care could reduce the length of time that passes before ECG detection of arrhythmia.

Methods

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard monitoring (ECG and a Holter monitor) or enhanced monitoring (ECG, a Holter monitor, and a KardiaMobile device). Patients were instructed to upload ECG recordings if they had cardiac symptoms, so that symptom-rhythm correlation could be achieved. The primary outcome was the time-to-diagnosis for AF. The secondary endpoint was the time-to-diagnosis for any arrhythmias.

Results

From October 2018 to October 2022, a total of 69 patients were enrolled, and they were followed up to 12 months. Overall, 6 of the 7 patients diagnosed with AF were in the enhanced-monitoring group (P = 0.106). The time-to-diagnosis was not significantly different in the 2 groups (P = 0.053). Overall arrhythmias were diagnosed in 10 patients (29%) in the standard-monitoring arm, compared to 22 patients (63%) in the enhanced-monitoring arm (P = 0.008). The time-to-diagnosis was reduced in the enhanced-monitoring arm (P = 0.010).

Conclusions

The time-to-diagnosis of any arrhythmia was reduced significantly in patients randomized to receive KardiaMobile device monitoring. Providing patients with a KardiaMobile device may expedite the diagnosis of arrhythmias during the waiting period for specialist care.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT04302311.

Hypotension and respiratory events related to electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) is common in the ED. Our previous work showed that hypotension and respiratory events were important adverse events that occurred in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion for AF/AFL. The purpose of this study was to examine if (1) beta-blockers or calcium channel blocker use prior to ECV were associated with hypotension and (2) medications used for procedural sedation were associated with respiratory events.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of pooled study data from four previous multicentred studies on AF/AFL. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression to examine predictors of hypotension and respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 1736 patients who received ECV. A hypotensive event occurred in 62 (3.6%) patients. There was no significant difference in the odds of a hypotensive event in patients who received a beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker in the ED compared to no rate control. Procedural sedation with fentanyl (OR 2.01 95% CI 1.15-3.51) and home beta-blocker use (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.14-3.21) were significantly associated with hypotensive events. A respiratory event occurred in 179 (10.3%) patients. Older age (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.30- 3.15) and receiving midazolam for procedural sedation were found to be significantly associated with respiratory events (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.02-3.88).

CONCLUSION

Beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker use prior to ECV for AF/AFL was not associated with hypotension. However, sedation with fentanyl and home beta-blocker use was associated with hypotension. The use of midazolam for procedural sedation was significantly associated with respiratory events.

Which Recommendations Are You Using? A Survey of Emergency Physician Management of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Background

Both the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) have published documents to guide atrial fibrillation (AF) management. In 2021, the CAEP updated its AF checklist. Prior to this update, the recommendations of the 2 organizations differed in several key areas, including the suggested cardioversion timeframe, the factors determining cardioversion eligibility, and anticoagulant initiation after cardioversion. Whether emergency physicians (EPs) are aware of, or adhering to, one, both, or neither of these documents is unknown.

Methods

We assessed document awareness, adherence, and EP practice using a piloted questionnaire administered to EPs at 5 emergency departments in 3 provinces.

Results

Of 166 survey recipients, 123 (74.1%) responded. The majority (64.7%) worked at an academic site, 38.8% identified as female, and median years in practice was 10.0. Most (93.1%) were aware of at least one of the documents; 45.7% were aware of both. Reported awareness was higher for the CCS (77.6%) vs the CAEP (61.2%) guidelines. Respondents varied in their adherence, with 40.5% using parts of both documents. Considerable practice variability occurred when recommendations conflicted. Despite its use not being recommended by either organization, half of respondents (50.0%) reported using the CHA2DS2-VASc score as their stroke-risk assessment tool.

Conclusions

Although most surveyed EPs were aware of at least one organization's AF documents, many reported using parts of both. When recommendations conflicted, EPs were divided in their decision-making. These findings emphasize the need to improve consensus between organizations and further improve knowledge translation.

Evolution of Antithrombotic Management of Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Over 10 Years and Guidelines Uptake

Background

The management of atrial fibrillation and/or flutter (AF) patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved significantly. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF guidelines, last updated in 2020, seek to aid physicians in balancing both bleeding and thrombotic risks.

Methods

A tertiary academic centre registry of patients with AF who had PCI was examined for the antithrombotic therapy at discharge in 4 time periods (cohort 2010–2011; cohort 2014–2015; cohort 2017; cohort 2019). Discharge prescription patterns were compared among the cohorts, using the χ² test. In addition, antithrombotic management in cohorts 2017 and 2019 were compared to guideline-expected therapy, using the χ² test.

Results

A total of 576 AF patients undergoing PCI were included. Clinical and procedural characteristics were similar among cohorts, except for an increase in drug-eluting stent use in the most recent cohort (94% vs 99%; P = 0.04). The rate of oral anticoagulation increased over time (75% vs 89%; P < 0.01), driven primarily by an increase in direct oral anticoagulants prescription (63% vs 84%; P < 0.01). In contrast to previous cohorts, there was no significant difference between the observed and the guideline-expected anticoagulation rate in cohort 2019 (89% vs 94%; P = 0.23).

Conclusions

A combination of expert guidance and educational initiatives in the past decade contributed to dramatic changes in the management of patients with AF undergoing PCI.

Atrial Fibrillation Management in 2021: An Updated Comparison of the Current CCS/CHRS, ESC, and AHA/ACC/HRS Guidelines

Given its complexity, the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) has relied increasingly on expert guideline recommendations; however, discrepancies among these professional societies can lead to confusion among practicing clinicians. This article compares the recommendations in the 2019 American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CCS/CHRS) AF guidelines. Although many of the recommendations are fundamentally similar, there are important differences between guidelines. Specifically, key differences are present in: 1) Definitions and classification of AF; 2) The role of opportunistic detection; 3) Symptom and quality-of-life evaluation; 4) Stroke-risk stratification, and the indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy; 5) the role of aspirin in stroke prevention for AF patients; 6) the antithrombotic regimens employed in the context of coronary artery disease; 7) the role of OAC, and specifically non-vitamin K direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), in patients with chronic and end-stage renal disease; 8) the target heart rate for patients treated with a rate-control strategy, along with the medications recommended to achieve the heart-rate target; and 9) the role of catheter ablation as first-line therapy or in patients with heart failure. These differences highlight areas of continuing clinical uncertainty where there are important needs and opportunities for future investigative work.

The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Comprehensive Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines program was developed to aid clinicians in the management of these complex patients, as well as to provide direction to policy makers and health care systems regarding related issues. The most recent comprehensive CCS AF guidelines update was published in 2010. Since then, periodic updates were published dealing with rapidly changing areas. However, since 2010 a large number of developments had accumulated in a wide range of areas, motivating the committee to complete a thorough guideline review. The 2020 iteration of the CCS AF guidelines represents a comprehensive renewal that integrates, updates, and replaces the past decade of guidelines, recommendations, and practical tips. It is intended to be used by practicing clinicians across all disciplines who care for patients with AF. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to evaluate recommendation strength and the quality of evidence. Areas of focus include: AF classification and definitions, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, screening and opportunistic AF detection, detection and management of modifiable risk factors, integrated approach to AF management, stroke prevention, arrhythmia management, sex differences, and AF in special populations. Extensive use is made of tables and figures to synthesize important material and present key concepts. This document should be an important aid for knowledge translation and a tool to help improve clinical management of this important and challenging arrhythmia.