Abstract
BackgroundThere exists limited evidence on managing atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department. We sought to better understand the burden of disease in patients with AF for whom rhythm control was not successful or not attempted and identify opportunities for improved care. MethodsWe conducted a health records review of consecutive visits of patients with AF at 2 academic emergency departments. We included patients ≥ 18 years with AF, heart rate ≥ 100 beats per minute (bpm), and who were not successfully cardioverted or not attempted cardioversion. Outcomes were: (1) incidence given rate control, (2) management practices, (3) adverse events, (4) compliance with guidelines, and (5) outcomes. We performed descriptive statistics. ResultsWe included 665 visits, with mean age ± standard deviation 77.4 ± 12.9, female 51.6%, mean ± standard deviation heart rate 121.6 ± 17.4 bpm, AF status (permanent 53.4%; paroxysmal 29.5%; persistent 17.1%), admitted 61.4%. Of all cases, 147 (22.1%) had primary AF and 518 (77.9%) had a rapid rate secondary to a medical cause (heart failure 12.8%; pneumonia 11.7%; sepsis 8.4%). In 117 with primary AF given rate control, 59.0% had a final rate ≤ 100 bpm and 7.7% suffered adverse events. Suboptimal use of rate control occurred in 47.0% (agent 2.6%; route 27.4%; dosage 9.4%; timing 7.7%). At discharge, 11.5% with CHADS-65 risk factors were still not anticoagulated. ConclusionsMost patients had a rapid rhythm secondary to a medical cause. There were a concerning number of adverse events related to suboptimal use of rate control. Better awareness of guidelines will ensure safer use of rate control.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call