Propafenone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock-Comparison to amiodarone and metoprolol

Echocardiography predictors of sustained sinus rhythm after cardioversion of supraventricular arrhythmia in patients with septic shock

PURPOSE

The echocardiography parameters may predict the maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of a supraventricular arrhythmia (SVA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients in septic shock with onset of an SVA, normal to moderately reduced LV systolic function (EF_LV˃̳35%) and on a continuous noradrenaline of <1.0 μg/kg.min were included. Echocardiography was performed at the arrhythmia onset, 1 h and 4 h post cardioversion on an infusion of propafenone or amiodarone.

RESULTS

Cardioversion was achieved in 96% of the 209 patients within a median time of 6(1.8-15.6)h, 134(64.1%) patients experienced at least one SVA recurrence after cardioversion. At 4 h the left atrial emptying fraction (LA_EF, cut-off 38.4%, AUC 0.69,p˂0.001), and transmitral A wave velocity-time-integral (Avti, cut-off 6.8 cm, AUC 0.65,p = 0.001) showed as limited predictors of a single arrhythmia recurrence. The LA_EF 44(36,49)%, (p = 0.005) and the Avti 8.65(7.13,9.50)cm, (p < 0.001) were associated with sustained sinus rhythm and decreased proportionally to increasing numbers of arrhythmia recurrences (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively). The enlarged left atrial end-systolic diameter at the arrhythmia onset (p = 0.04) and elevated systolic pulmonary artery pressure at 4 h (p = 0.007) were weak predictors of multiple(˃3) recurrences.

CONCLUSION

The LA_EF and Avti are related to arrhythmia recurrences post-cardioversion suggesting potential guidance to the choice between rhythm and rate control strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029169, registered on 24th of January 2017.

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Association between amiodarone use and risk of cataract: a population-based active-comparator study

BACKGROUND

Despite previous concerns about ocular side effects related to amiodarone, the relationship between amiodarone and cataract remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the potential association between amiodarone use and the subsequent risk of cataract, taking into account potential confounders.

METHODS

This population-based, active comparator-controlled cohort study utilized the data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance program and involved adults over 40 years old between 2001 and 2013. We analyzed 12 055 new amiodarone users and contrasted them with a propafenone user cohort. The primary outcome was the incidence of cataract. Inverse-probability treatment-weighting (IPTW) was further used to eliminate the potential confounding effects, and Cox proportional-hazard regression analyses were performed to calculate the risk of cataract. Serial subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

In the main analysis, amiodarone users did not exhibit a significant causal relationship in both full cohort [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.994, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.913-1.082] and IPTW cohort (IPTW-aHR 0.977, 95% CI: 0.900-1.060). Furthermore, it is important to highlight a significantly reduced risk of cataract among patients with heart failure (IPTW-aHR 0.708, 95% CI: 0.554-0.905) and during the 2-year follow-up period (IPTW-aHR 0.889, 95% CI: 0.794-0.996), implying potential advantages linked to the use of amiodarone.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found no increased risk of cataract with amiodarone, one of the most frequently used antiarrhythmic medications, compared to the use of propafenone. Future research is recommended to explore potential mechanisms and their implications for clinical practice.

Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared.

METHODS

In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence.

RESULTS

Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p  < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.

The role of beta-blocker drugs in critically ill patients: a SIAARTI expert consensus statement

BACKGROUND

The role of β-blockers in the critically ill has been studied, and data on the protective effects of these drugs on critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature over the last two decades. However, consensus and guidelines by scientific societies on the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients are still lacking. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient's care process.

METHODS

The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected a panel of experts and asked them to define key aspects underlying the use of β-blockers in critically ill adult patients. The methodology followed by the experts during this process was in line with principles of modified Delphi and RAND-UCLA methods. The experts developed statements and supportive rationales in the form of informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to blind votes for consensus.

RESULTS

The literature search suggests that adrenergic stress and increased heart rate in critically ill patients are associated with organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Heart rate control thus seems to be critical in the management of the critically ill patient, requiring careful clinical evaluation aimed at both the differential diagnosis to treat secondary tachycardia and the treatment of rhythm disturbance. In addition, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of persistent tachycardia may be considered in patients with septic shock once hypovolemia has been ruled out. Intravenous application should be the preferred route of administration.

CONCLUSION

β-blockers protective effects in critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature. Their use in the acute treatment of increased heart rate requires understanding of the pathophysiology and careful differential diagnosis, as all causes of tachycardia should be ruled out and addressed first.

Recognition and management of hemorrhaging in combination with emerging enterogenic sepsis during a hepatectomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Patients with hemorrhagic shock may develop emerging enterogenic sepsis due to damage to the intestinal mucosal barrier and translocation of intestinal bacteria and endotoxins caused by ischemic injury. Because of the dual effects of anesthesia state and hemorrhagic shock, perioperative emerging enterogenic sepsis is even more rare and insidious.

CASE PRESENTATION

We reported a case of 56-year-old man who underwent right hepatectomy for intrahepatic bile duct stones. Severe hemorrhage occurred during the procedure and the hemodynamics neither improved nor worsened after rehydration therapy and vasoactive drug administration. Based on the patient's history and clinical presentation, a possible enterogenic sepsis was considered. After anti-infective treatment and hormone supplementation, the patient's circulation improved significantly and he had an uneventful recovery.

CONCLUSION

The possibility of emerging enterogenic sepsis in hemorrhagic shock must always be taken into consideration. Familiarity with the risk factors and pathophysiological alterations of enterogenic sepsis is a prerequisite for early recognition and sound clinical decision making.

Atrial Fibrillation Occurring During Acute Hospitalization: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Acute atrial fibrillation is defined as atrial fibrillation detected in the setting of acute care or acute illness; atrial fibrillation may be detected or managed for the first time during acute hospitalization for another condition. Atrial fibrillation after cardiothoracic surgery is a distinct type of acute atrial fibrillation. Acute atrial fibrillation is associated with high risk of long-term atrial fibrillation recurrence, warranting clinical attention during acute hospitalization and over long-term follow-up. A framework of substrates and triggers can be useful for evaluating and managing acute atrial fibrillation. Acute management requires a multipronged approach with interdisciplinary care collaboration, tailoring treatments to the patient's underlying substrate and acute condition. Key components of acute management include identification and treatment of triggers, selection and implementation of rate/rhythm control, and management of anticoagulation. Acute rate or rhythm control strategy should be individualized with consideration of the patient's capacity to tolerate rapid rates or atrioventricular dyssynchrony, and the patient's ability to tolerate the risk of the therapeutic strategy. Given the high risks of atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients with acute atrial fibrillation, clinical follow-up and heart rhythm monitoring are warranted. Long-term management is guided by patient substrate, with implications for intensity of heart rhythm monitoring, anticoagulation, and considerations for rhythm management strategies. Overall management of acute atrial fibrillation addresses substrates and triggers. The 3As of acute management are acute triggers, atrial fibrillation rate/rhythm management, and anticoagulation. The 2As and 2Ms of long-term management include monitoring of heart rhythm and modification of lifestyle and risk factors, in addition to considerations for atrial fibrillation rate/rhythm management and anticoagulation. Several gaps in knowledge related to acute atrial fibrillation exist and warrant future research.

Management of new onset atrial fibrillation in critically unwell adult patients: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically unwell patients. NOAF can lead to worsening haemodynamic compromise, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and increased mortality. The aim of this systematic review and narrative synthesis is to evaluate the non-pharmacological and pharmacological management strategies for NOAF in critically unwell patients.

METHODS

Of 1782 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion, including 4 RCTs and 26 observational studies. Efficacy of direct current cardioversion, amiodarone, β-antagonists, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, magnesium, and less commonly used agents such as ibutilide are reported.

RESULTS

Cardioversion rates of 48% were reported for direct current cardioversion; however, re-initiation of NOAF was as high as 23.4%. Amiodarone was the most commonly reported intervention with cardioversion rates ranging from 18% to 95.8% followed by β-antagonists with cardioversion rates from 40% to 92.3%. Amiodarone was more effective than diltiazem (odds ratio [OR]=1.91, P=0.32) at cardioversion. Short-acting β-antagonists esmolol and landiolol were more effective compared with diltiazem at cardioversion (OR=3.55, P=0.04) and HR control (OR=3.2, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was significant variation between studies with regard to the definition of successful cardioversion and heart rate control, making comparisons between studies and interventions difficult. Future RCTs comparing individual anti-arrhythmic agents, in particular magnesium, amiodarone, and β-antagonists, and the role of anticoagulation in critically unwell patients are required. There is also an urgent need for a core outcome dataset for studies of new onset atrial fibrillation to allow comparisons between different anti-arrhythmic strategies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121739.

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

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care.

OBJECTIVES

In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK.

RESULTS

Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior.

FUTURE WORK

Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic scoping review to summarise comparative evidence to inform NOAF management for patients admitted to ICU.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials register, additional WHO ICTRP trial databases, and NIHR Clinical Trials Gateway in March 2019. We included studies evaluating treatment or prevention strategies for NOAF or acute anticoagulation in general medical, surgical or mixed adult ICUs. We extracted study details, population characteristics, intervention and comparator(s), methods addressing confounding, results, and recommendations for future research onto study-specific forms.

RESULTS

Of 3,651 citations, 42 articles were eligible: 25 primary studies, 12 review articles and 5 surveys/opinion papers. Definitions of NOAF varied between NOAF lasting 30 s to NOAF lasting > 24 h. Only one comparative study investigated effects of anticoagulation. Evidence from small RCTs suggests calcium channel blockers (CCBs) result in slower rhythm control than beta blockers (1 study), and more cardiovascular instability than amiodarone (1 study). Evidence from 4 non-randomised studies suggests beta blocker and amiodarone therapy may be equivalent in respect to rhythm control. Beta blockers may be associated with improved survival compared to amiodarone, CCBs, and digoxin, though supporting evidence is subject to confounding. Currently, the limited evidence does not support therapeutic anticoagulation during ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

From the limited evidence available beta blockers or amiodarone may be superior to CCBs as first line therapy in undifferentiated patients in ICU. The little evidence available does not support therapeutic anticoagulation for NOAF whilst patients are critically ill. Consensus definitions for NOAF, rate and rhythm control are needed.

Sepsis With Preexisting Heart Failure: Management of Confounding Clinical Features

Preexisting heart failure (HF) in patients with sepsis is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Core sepsis management includes aggressive volume resuscitation followed by vasopressors (and potentially inotropes) if fluid is inadequate to restore perfusion; however, large fluid boluses and vasoactive agents are concerning amid the cardiac dysfunction of HF. This review summarizes evidence regarding the influence of HF on sepsis clinical outcomes, pathophysiologic concerns, resuscitation targets, hemodynamic interventions, and adjunct management (ie, antiarrhythmics, positive pressure ventilatory support, and renal replacement therapy) in patients with sepsis and preexisting HF. Patients with sepsis and preexisting HF receive less fluid during resuscitation; however, evidence suggests traditional fluid resuscitation targets do not increase the risk of adverse events in HF patients with sepsis and likely improve outcomes. Norepinephrine remains the most well-supported vasopressor for patients with sepsis with preexisting HF, while dopamine may induce more cardiac adverse events. Dobutamine should be used cautiously given its generally detrimental effects but may have an application when combined with norepinephrine in patients with low cardiac output. Management of chronic HF medications warrants careful consideration for continuation or discontinuation upon development of sepsis, and β-blockers may be appropriate to continue in the absence of acute hemodynamic decompensation. Optimal management of atrial fibrillation may include β-blockers after acute hemodynamic stabilization as they have also shown independent benefits in sepsis. Positive pressure ventilatory support and renal replacement must be carefully monitored for effects on cardiac function when HF is present.

Managing new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: a systematic narrative review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to summarise the latest evidence on efficacy and safety of treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critical illness.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill adult patients who developed NOAF during admission.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were efficacy in achieving rate or rhythm control, as defined in each study. Secondary outcomes included mortality, stroke, bleeding and adverse events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge on 11 March 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting treatment efficacy for NOAF in critically ill patients. Data were extracted, and quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Of 1406 studies identified, 16 remained after full-text screening including two RCTs. Study quality was generally low due to a lack of randomisation, absence of blinding and small cohorts. Amiodarone was the most commonly studied agent (10 studies), followed by beta-blockers (8), calcium channel blockers (6) and magnesium (3). Rates of successful rhythm control using amiodarone varied from 30.0% to 95.2%, beta-blockers from 31.8% to 92.3%, calcium channel blockers from 30.0% to 87.1% and magnesium from 55.2% to 77.8%. Adverse effects of treatment were rarely reported (five studies).

CONCLUSION

The reported efficacy of beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, magnesium and amiodarone for achieving rhythm control was highly varied. As there is currently significant variation in how NOAF is managed in critically ill patients, we recommend future research focuses on comparing the efficacy and safety of amiodarone, beta-blockers and magnesium. Further research is needed to inform the decision surrounding anticoagulant use in this patient group.

Efficacy and safety of 1C class antiarrhythmic agent (propafenone) for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock compared to amiodarone: protocol of a prospective randomised double-blind study

INTRODUCTION

Supraventricular arrhythmias contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. A retrospective study generated the hypothesis that propafenone could be more effective than amiodarone in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm (SR). Certain echocardiographic parameters may predict a successful cardioversion and help in the decision on rhythm or rate control strategy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The trial includes septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia, but without severe impairment of the left ventricular ejection fraction. After baseline echocardiography, the patient is randomised to receive a bolus and maintenance dose of either amiodarone or propafenone. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients that have achieved rhythm control at 24 hours after the start of the infusion. The secondary outcomes are the percentages of patients that needed rescue treatments (DC cardioversion or unblinding and crossover of the antiarrhythmics), the recurrence of arrhythmias, intensive care unit mortality, 28-day and 1-year mortality. In the posthoc analysis, we separately assess subgroups of patients with pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In the exploratory part of the study, we assess whether the presence of a transmitral diastolic A wave and its higher velocity-time integral is predictive for the sustainability of mechanical SR and whether the indexed left atrial endsystolic volume is predictive of recurrent arrhythmia. Considering that the restoration of SR within 24 hours occurred in 74% of the amiodarone-treated patients and in 89% of the patients treated with propafenone, we plan to include 200 patients to have an 80% chance to demonstrate the superiority of propafenone at p=0.05.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial is recruiting patients according to its second protocol version approved by the University Hospital Ethical Board on the 6 October 2017 (No. 1691/16S-IV). The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03029169.

Hemodynamic profiles following digoxin use in patients with sepsis in the ICU

PURPOSE

To explore the impact of digoxin on hemodynamic parameters in patients with sepsis and tachycardia admitted to the intensive care unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of adult patients admitted to the medical and mixed ICU at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota from March 2008 to February 2018, initiated on digoxin within 24 h of ICU stay. Hemodynamic parameters were reviewed before digoxin administration and at 6, 12 and 24 h after. Adverse events including new onset conduction abnormalities or arrhythmias during the first 48 h after digoxin administration were reviewed by a critical care cardiologist.

RESULTS

Study included 180 patients. We observed significant decrease in heart rate from 124 (115-138) beats/min 1 h before digoxin to 101 (87-117) 6 h after digoxin and 94 (84-112) 12 h after (p < .01). Median systolic blood pressure increased from 100 (91-112) mm Hg 1 h before to 110 (100-122) (p < .01) and 111 (103-124) at 6 and 12 h respectively after digoxin.

CONCLUSIONS

Early digoxin administration in patients with sepsis and tachycardia is uncommon but associated with improvements of hemodynamic parameters. These preliminary results will help formulate future hypotheses for focused trials on utility, efficacy and safety of digoxin in sepsis.

[Atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis and non-cardiac infections]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is by far the most frequent cardiac arrhythmia associated with sepsis and infections. Newly occurring AF due to infections is associated with a deterioration of the prognosis for acute events and also for the long-term prognosis of patients. The risk of developing AF during an infection depends on general (e.g. age, structural heart disease) as well as infection-specific risk factors (e.g. sepsis severity, vasopressor treatment). Current guidelines do not make specific recommendations on the treatment of infection-associated AF and very few prospective data are available. The use of beta blockers appears to be safe for both prevention and frequency control of AF even in patients requiring catecholamines. For specific antiarrhythmic treatment, the use of class I antiarrhythmic agents is conceivable as an alternative to the predominantly used amiodarone. Newly occurring AF within infections has long been considered a specific entity with a low risk of recurrence, so that only a small proportion of patients received long-term effective anticoagulation; however, data from large retrospective studies suggest significantly higher recurrence rates. Therefore, the question of whether this group of patients benefits from long-term effective anticoagulation and extended monitoring of arrhythmia should be the subject of future research.

Landiolol for managing post-operative atrial fibrillation

Beta-blockers are a potential option to manage peri-operative atrial fibrillation. Landiolol is a new ultra-short beta-blocker with a half-life of only 4 minutes and very high beta-1 selectivity which has been used for treatment and prevention of atrial fibrillation in pulmonary surgery and gastro-intestinal surgery. Due to its limited negative inotropic effect and high beta-1 selectivity landiolol allows for control of heart rate with minimal impact on blood pressure. Landiolol is well tolerated by the respiratory system. Additional benefits are related to the regulation of the inflammatory response and blunting of the adrenergic pathway. There is a limited number of trials with total of 61 patients undergoing lung resection or oesophagectomy who developed post-operative atrial fibrillation and were treated with landiolol. The experience with landiolol for prevention is more documented than landiolol application for treatment of post-operative atrial fibrillation. There are 9 comparative studies with a total of 450 patients administered landiolol for prevention of post-operative atrial fibrillation. The use of low dosage (5-10mcg/kg/min) is usually sufficient to rapidly control heart rate which is associated with earlier and higher rate of conversion to sinus rhythm as compared to the controls. The excellent tolerance of landiolol at lower dosage (3-5mcg/kg/min) allows to initiate prophylactic use during surgery and postoperatively. Landiolol prophylaxis is associated with reduced incidence of post-operative atrial fibrillation without triggering adverse events related to a beta-blockade.