Outcomes and care quality metrics for people living with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation in Uganda

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) and is challenging to treat in lower-resourced settings in which RHD remains endemic.

Objective

We characterized demographics, treatment outcomes, and factors leading to care retention for participants with RHD and AF in Uganda.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Uganda national RHD registry between June 2009 and May 2018. Participants with AF or atrial flutter were included. Demographics, survival, and care metrics were compared with participants without AF. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with retention in care among participants with AF.

Results

A total of 1530 participants with RHD were analyzed and 293 (19%) had AF. The median age was 24 (interquartile range 14-38) years. Mortality was similar in both groups (adjusted hazard ratio 1.183, P = .77) over a median follow-up of 203 (interquartile range 98-275) days. A total of 79% of AF participants were prescribed anticoagulation, and 43% were aware of their target international normalized ratio. Retention in care was higher in participants with AF (18% vs 12%, P < .01). Factors associated with decreased retention in care include New York Heart Association functional class III/IV (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.76) and distance to nearest health center (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.99). Anticoagulation prescription was associated with enhanced care retention (adjusted OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.24-2.79).

Conclusion

Participants with RHD and AF in Uganda do not experience higher mortality than those without AF. Anticoagulation prescription rates are high. Although retention in care is poor among RHD participants, those with concurrent AF are more likely to be retained.

Management of atrial fibrillation in rheumatic heart disease

Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is the underlying cause of a significant proportion of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the low- and middle-income countries, while nonvalvular AF is the most common cause of AF in high-income countries. RHD is also common among African Americans, migrants, and the indigenous population of high-income countries. The onset of AF in RHD patients is a clinical marker of worse outcomes and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite RHD being a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the young in many parts of the world, it is often neglected by policymakers, the media, and even the medical fraternity. Stroke risk assessment using various risk scores has not been systematically evaluated in rheumatic AF patients. Rate control may not be ideal for symptom control in rheumatic AF patients considering the young age and an active lifestyle. There is limited information regarding the nonpharmacological management of rheumatic AF. The current management guidelines based on nonvalvular AF do not apply to rheumatic AF patients who are often younger, are women, and have fewer comorbidities. This review critically looks at specific areas such as stroke prevention with reference to direct oral anticoagulants, cardioversion, rate and rhythm control strategies, and the role of nonpharmacological methods in rheumatic AF management. Future recommendations must be cognizant of local health care systems and resourcing considering the geographic distribution of the disease.

Safety and Efficacy of Ibutilide for Acute Pharmacological Cardioversion of Rheumatic Atrial Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Ibutilide is indicated for acute cardioversion of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its efficacy and safety in the pharmacological cardioversion of rheumatic AF are unknown.

METHODS

Patients with mild-to-moderate rheumatic mitral valve (MV) disease with symptomatic, paroxysmal, or persistent AF were included in the analysis. Intravenous ibutilide was administered at doses tailored to body weight (0.5-2.0 mg) for over 10 min. The primary end point was efficacy, assessed as the rate of conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. The secondary end point was safety, including arrhythmic events and death within 24 h of drug initiation.

RESULTS

From June 2016 to October 2018, 165 patients (94 with mitral stenosis, 23 with mitral regurgitation, 11 with mixed MV disease, and 37 with MV replacement) received ibutilide (mean dose 0.90 ± 0.54 mg). Ibutilide successfully converted AF to sinus rhythm in 127/165 (76.9%) patients, with a conversion time of 7.9 ± 4.1 min. The QTc increased from 419.9 ± 15.8 to 487.5 ± 34 ms after ibutilide administration (p < 0.001). The mean change in QTc after ibutilide administration (∆QTc) was 72.01 ± 36.03. There were no deaths, but 3 patients (1.8%) developed torsades de pointes (TdP) requiring defibrillation 55 ± 37 min after infusion.

CONCLUSION

Ibutilide cardioverted 77% of rheumatic AF to sinus rhythm, indicating its potential as a clinically useful option for pharmacological cardioversion of rheumatic AF. TdP is a potentially serious adverse event that requires careful monitoring.

Esmolol Compared with Amiodarone in the Treatment of Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation (RAF): An Emergency Medicine External Validity Study

BACKGROUND

Recent-onset atrial fibrillation (RAF) is the most frequent supraventricular dysrhythmia in emergency medicine. Severely compromised patients require acute treatment with injectable drugs OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this external validity study was to compare the short-term efficacy of esmolol with that of amiodarone to treat severe RAF in an emergency setting.

METHODS

This retrospective survey was conducted in mobile intensive care units by analyzing patient records between 2002 and 2013. We included RAF with (one or more) severity factors including: clinical shock, angina pectoris, ST shift, and very rapid ventricular rate. A blind matching procedure was used to constitute esmolol group (n = 100) and amiodarone group (n = 200), with similar profiles for age, gender, initial blood pressure, heart rate, severity factors, and treatment delay. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients with a ventricular rate control defined as heart frequency ≤ 100 beats/min. More stringent (rhythm control) and more humble indicators (20% heart rate reduction) were analyzed at from 10 to 120 min after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were comparable for both groups: age 66 ± 16 years, male 71%, treatment delay < 1 h 36%, 1-2 h 29%, > 2 h 35%, chest pain 61%, ST shift 62%, ventricular rate 154 ± 26 beats/min, and blood pressure 126/73 mm Hg. The superiority of esmolol was significant at 40 min (64% rate control with esmolol vs. 25% with amiodarone) and for all indicators from 10 to 120 min after treatment onset.

CONCLUSION

In "real life emergency medicine," esmolol is better than amiodarone in the treatment of RAF.

Ibutilide Effectiveness and Safety in the Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter in the Community Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the use of ibutilide for cardioversion in atrial fibrillation and flutter outside of clinical trials. We seek to describe patient characteristics, ibutilide administration patterns, cardioversion rates, and adverse outcomes in the community emergency department (ED) setting. We also evaluate potential predictors of cardioversion success.

METHODS

Using a retrospective cohort of adults who received ibutilide in 21 community EDs between January 2009 and June 2015, we gathered demographic and clinical variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We calculated rates of cardioversion and frequency of ventricular tachycardia within 4 hours and estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) in a multivariate regression model for potential predictors of cardioversion.

RESULTS

Among 361 patients, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range 53 to 71 years) and most had recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter (98.1%). Five percent of the cohort had a history of heart failure. The initial QTc interval was prolonged (>480 ms) in 29.4% of patients, and 3.1% were hypokalemic (<3.5 mEq/L). The mean ibutilide dose was 1.5 mg (SD 0.5 mg) and the rate of ibutilide-related cardioversion within 4 hours was 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.6% to 60.1%), 50.5% for atrial fibrillation and 75.0% for atrial flutter. Two patients experienced ventricular tachycardia (0.6%), both during their second ibutilide infusion. Age (in decades) (aOR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5), atrial flutter (versus atrial fibrillation) (aOR 2.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 5.1), and no history of atrial fibrillation and flutter (aOR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.1) were associated with cardioversion.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of ibutilide in this community ED setting were consistent with clinical trial results despite less stringent patient selection criteria.

Pretreatment with intravenous amiodarone improves the efficacy of ibutilide treatment on cardioversion rate and maintenance time of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the pharmacological conversion of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) using amiodarone or/and ibutilide. Seventy-nine consecutive patients (48 males and 31 females; mean age, 64.6±11.2 years; range, 40-80 years) with non-valvular chronic AF lasting >7 days (range, 7-97 days) that were admitted to hospital for elective pharmacological cardioversion were randomly assigned to receive treatment with intravenous ibutilide (1 mg plus an additional 1 mg if required; n=39) or intravenous amiodarone (300 mg) plus intravenous ibutilide (1 mg; n=40). Success rates of cardioversion were 51.3% (20/39 patients) for ibutilide alone and 71.8% (28/39 patients) for amiodarone + ibutilide (P<0.05). A comparable increase in the QTc interval was observed in the two groups. It was observed that the co-administration of amiodarone and ibutilide was safer than ibutilide alone with regard to the risk of ventricular arrhythmia. Forty-eight patients of successful cardioversion were personally contacted for follow-up. The result indicated that the sinus rhythm maintenance time of the amiodarone + ibutilide group (4.36±2.44 months) was significantly higher than that of the ibutilide group (2.34±1.75 months; P<0.01). In conclusion, pretreatment with intravenous amiodarone + ibutilide for pharmacological cardioversion of persistent AF is considered to be more effective and safer than treatment with ibutilide alone.

Efficacy and safety of ibutilide for chemical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF/AFL) are the most common arrhythmias encountered in clinical practice. Rate versus rhythm control remains a difficult decision, especially in the acute setting. Ibutilide is a class III antiarrhythmic indicated for pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset AF/AFL. At the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, restoration of sinus rhythm is desirable because many patients have contraindications to anticoagulation. In addition, most are on multiple medications that prolong the QT interval; therefore, the objective of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of ibutilide.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of 81 patients who were identified via the pharmacy database as receiving ibutilide for AF/AFL from January 2002 to May 2006. Outcomes including cardioversion rates and effects on the QT interval were recorded.

RESULTS

Ibutilide use was associated with successful cardioversion in 75% of patients. Out of 81 patients, 68 patients (84%) were on at least 1 medication that prolonged the QT interval at the time of ibutilide administration. However, no significant changes in the corrected QT interval pre and post ibutilide cardioversion were noted in any group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, ibutilide is safe and effective in cancer patients when used for acute cardioversion of AF/AFL. Despite the use of multiple medications that can potentially prolong the QT interval, no patient experienced serious life-threatening rhythm disturbances or significant QT prolongation during ibutilide administration.

Management strategies in atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently occur together, and their coexistence is associated with a poor prognosis. AF and HF share risk factors, but their relationship involves complex hemodynamic, neurohormonal, inflammatory, ultrastructural, and electrophysiologic processes that extend beyond epidemiological associations. The shared mechanisms underlying AF and HF have important implications for the treatment of AF in patients with HF. This article focuses on reviewing contemporary data as it pertains to AF management in patients with HF and provides insight into investigational therapies currently under development.

Antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Although stroke prevention is the only way to improve prognosis, antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are of primary importance both in the conversion to sinus rhythm and in the long-term control of rhythm and rate.

AREAS COVERED

We searched the Cochrane Library and Medline Database for articles published in English concerning efficacy and safety of AADs in AF. Particular attention was paid to the recently published European Society of Cardiology guidelines. This review provides an overview of the currently available drugs used in AF, with a particular emphasis on their comparative efficacy and safety in different kind of patients. Recent important findings, and advantages and disadvantages of recently approved drugs such as vernakalant and dronedarone, are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

AADs remain fundamental in the acute and long-term management of AF, to control symptoms and to reduce the negative impact of the arrhythmia on QoL. The choice of a rate- over rhythm-control strategy should be individualized and based on accurate evaluation of patient medical history and symptoms. New agents will contribute to improve treatment efficacy together with the guarantee of better safety profiles.