Comparative Effectiveness of Heart Rate Control Medications for the Treatment of Sepsis-Associated Atrial Fibrillation

Published:October 24, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.049

      Background

      Atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response frequently complicates the management of critically ill patients with sepsis and may necessitate the initiation of medication to avoid hemodynamic compromise. However, the optimal medication to achieve rate control for AF with rapid ventricular response in sepsis is unclear.

      Research Question

      What is the comparative effectiveness of frequently used AF medications (β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, and digoxin) on heart rate (HR) reduction among critically ill patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response?

      Study Design and Methods

      We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study among patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response (HR > 110 beats/min). We compared the rate control effectiveness of β-blockers to calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, and digoxin using multivariate-adjusted, time-varying exposures in competing risk models (for death and addition of another AF medication), adjusting for fixed and time-varying confounders.

      Results

      Among 666 included patients, 50.6% initially received amiodarone, 10.1% received a β-blocker, 33.8% received a calcium channel blocker, and 5.6% received digoxin. The adjusted hazard ratio for HR of < 110 beats/min by 1 h was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.74) for amiodarone vs β-blocker, 0.37 (95% CI, 0.18-0.77) for digoxin vs β-blocker, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.11) for calcium channel blocker vs β-blocker. By 6 h, the adjusted hazard ratio for HR < 110 beats/min was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.97) for amiodarone vs β-blocker, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-1.004) for digoxin vs β-blocker, and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.71-1.49) for calcium channel blocker vs β-blocker.

      Interpretation

      In a large cohort of patients with sepsis and AF with rapid ventricular response, a β-blocker treatment strategy was associated with improved HR control at 1 h, but generally similar HR control at 6 h compared with amiodarone, calcium channel blocker, or digoxin.

      Key Words

      Abbreviations:

      AF ( atrial fibrillation), aOR ( adjusted OR), HR ( heart rate), MAP ( mean arterial pressure), RVR ( rapid ventricular response)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to CHEST
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Klein Klouwenberg P.M.C.
        • Frencken J.F.
        • Kuipers S.
        • et al.
        Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients with sepsis. A cohort study.
        Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017; 195: 205-211
        • Walkey A.J.
        • Wiener R.S.
        • Ghobrial J.M.
        • Curtis L.H.
        • Benjamin E.J.
        Incident stroke and mortality associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized with severe sepsis.
        JAMA. 2011; 306: 2248-2254
        • Varpula M.
        • Tallgren M.
        • Saukkonen K.
        • Voipio-Pulkki L.-M.
        • Pettilä V.
        Hemodynamic variables related to outcome in septic shock.
        Intensive Care Med. 2005; 31: 1066-1071
        • Yoshida T.
        • Uchino S.
        • Sasabuchi Y.
        Clinical course after identification of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: the AFTER-ICU study.
        J Crit Care. 2020; 59: 136-142
        • January C.T.
        • Wann L.S.
        • Calkins H.
        • et al.
        2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration With the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
        Circulation. 2019; 140: e125-e151
        • Walkey A.J.
        • Evans S.R.
        • Winter M.R.
        • Benjamin E.J.
        Practice patterns and outcomes of treatments for atrial fibrillation during sepsis: a propensity-matched cohort study.
        Chest. 2016; 149: 74-83
        • Pollard T.J.
        • Johnson A.E.W.
        • Raffa J.D.
        • Celi L.A.
        • Mark R.G.
        • Badawi O.
        The eICU Collaborative Research Database, a freely available multi-center database for critical care research.
        Sci Data. 2018; 5: 180178
        • Goldberger A.L.
        • Amaral L.A.
        • Glass L.
        • et al.
        PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals.
        Circulation. 2000; 101: E215-E220
        • Iwashyna T.J.
        • Odden A.
        • Rohde J.
        • et al.
        Identifying patients with severe sepsis using administrative claims: patient-level validation of the angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis.
        Med Care. 2014; 52: e39-e43
        • Singer M.
        • Deutschman C.S.
        • Seymour C.W.
        • et al.
        The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 801-810
        • Wyse D.G.
        • Waldo A.L.
        • DiMarco J.P.
        • et al.
        A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1825-1833
        • Van Gelder I.C.
        • Groenveld H.F.
        • Crijns H.J.G.M.
        • et al.
        Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 1363-1373
        • Vincent J.L.
        • Moreno R.
        • Takala J.
        • et al.
        The SOFA (sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.
        Intensive Care Med. 1996; 22: 707-710
        • Haneuse S.
        • VanderWeele T.J.
        • Arterburn D.
        Using the e-value to assess the potential effect of unmeasured confounding in observational studies.
        JAMA. 2019; 321: 602-603
        • Moskowitz A.
        • Chen K.P.
        • Cooper A.Z.
        • Chahin A.
        • Ghassemi M.M.
        • Celi L.A.
        Management of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the intensive care unit: a secondary analysis of electronic health record data.
        Shock. 2017; 48: 436-440
        • Kanji S.
        • Williamson D.R.
        • Yaghchi B.M.
        • Albert M.
        • McIntyre L.
        Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Epidemiology and management of atrial fibrillation in medical and noncardiac surgical adult intensive care unit patients.
        J Crit Care. 2012; 27: 326.e1-326.e8