Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Atrial Fibrillation Treatment & Management

  • Author: Lawrence Rosenthal, MD, PhD, FACC, FHRS; Chief Editor: Jeffrey N Rottman, MD  more...
 
Updated: Jan 02, 2016
 

Approach Considerations

The cornerstones of atrial fibrillation management are rate control and anticoagulation[1, 10] and rhythm control for those symptomatically limited by AF.[10] The clinical decision to use a rhythm-control or rate-control strategy requires an integrated consideration of several factors, including degree of symptoms, likelihood of successful cardioversion, presence of comorbidities, and candidacy for AF ablation (eg, pulmonary vein electric isolation or MAZE procedure).

Restoration of sinus rhythm with regularization of the heart's rhythm improves cardiac hemodynamics and exercise tolerance. By maintaining the atrial contribution to cardiac output, symptoms of heart failure and overall quality of life can improve. As AF contributes to pathologic atrial and ventricular remodeling, restoration of sinus rhythm can slow or, in some cases, reverse atrial dilatation and left ventricular dysfunction. For these reasons, most clinicians focus initially on restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with new-onset AF and opt for a rate-control strategy only when rhythm control fails.

However, several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that a strategy aimed at restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm neither improves survival nor reduces the risk of stroke in patients with AF.

In the AFFIRM study (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management), an insignificant trend toward increased mortality was noted in the rate control group, and importantly, no evidence suggested that the rhythm-control strategy protected patients from stroke. In the study, 4060 subjects aged 65 years or older whose AF was likely to be recurrent and who were at risk for stroke were randomized to a strategy of rhythm control (cardioversion to sinus rhythm plus drugs to maintain sinus rhythm) versus a strategy of rate control (in which no attempt was made to restore or maintain normal sinus rhythm).[24] Clinically silent recurrences of AF in the rhythm-control group are theorized to be responsible for the increased rates of thromboembolic events and mortality noted in this cohort. This underscores the importance of anticoagulation in both rhythm-control and rate-control patients.

New developments aimed at curing AF are being explored actively. By reducing the critical mass required to sustain AF through either surgical or catheter-based compartmentalization of the atria (ie, MAZE procedure), fibrillatory wavelets collide with fixed anatomic obstacles, such as suture lines or complete lines of ablation, thus eliminating or reducing the development of permanent AF. One concern is that an extensive MAZE procedure can render the atrial severely hypocontractile, which may elevate the risk of embolic stroke even if AF is substantively suppressed. Some patients with focal origins of their AF also may be candidates for catheter ablation. Simple electric isolation of the origins of the pulmonary veins has proven roughly 80% successful in substantially reducing frequency and duration of AF in patients who do not tolerate AF well.

AF ablation methods continue to be studied and modified and thus may be considered as a work in progress rather than a mature primary therapy.Go to Catheter Ablation for complete information on this topic.

Next

Risk-Management Decisions

One of the major management decisions in AF (and atrial flutter) is determining the risk of stroke and appropriate anticoagulation regimen for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients. For each anticoagulant, the benefit in terms of stroke reduction must be weighed against the risk of serious bleeding.

Overall, approximately 15-25% of all strokes in the United States (75,000/y) can be attributed to AF. Known risk factors for stroke in patients with AF include male sex, valvular heart disease (rheumatic valvular disease), heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes. Additional risk factors, such as advanced age and prior history of stroke, diabetes, and hypertension, place patients with preexisting AF at even higher risk for further comorbidities such as stroke (see Table 1 below).[2]

Table 1. Risk Factors for Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (Open Table in a new window)

Risk Factors Relative Risk
Prior stroke or TIA 2.5
History of hypertension 1.6
Heart failure and/or reduced left ventricular function 1.4
Advanced age 1.4
Diabetes 1.7
Coronary artery disease 1.5

Patients with rheumatic heart disease and AF have an even higher risk for stroke (17-fold). At least 4 large clinical trials have clearly demonstrated that anticoagulation with warfarin decreases the risk of stroke by 50-80%. However, while warfarin reduces 30-day mortality from ischemic stroke it increases intracranial hemorrhage-related mortality.[39]

Most clinicians agree that the risk-benefit ratio of warfarin therapy in low-risk patients with AF is not advantageous. Warfarin therapy has, however, been shown to be beneficial in higher-risk patients with AF. A target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2-3 is traditionally used in this cohort, as this limits the risk of hemorrhage while providing protection against thrombus formation.

The appropriate treatment regimen for patients with AF at intermediate risk is controversial. In this population, the clinician should assess risk factors for thromboembolic disease, patient preference, risk of bleeding, risk of falls or trauma, and likelihood of medication adherence. Warfarin is also superior to clopidogrel or a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin in the prevention of embolic events in higher-risk patients.

Note that treatment risks exist with concomitant aspirin therapy with oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. A study analyzing concomitant use of aspirin and its association with clinical outcomes among AF patients treated with oral anticoagulation found a significantly increased risk for bleeding among those receiving both therapies.[40] Hospitalizations for bleeding events were also increased in the group treated with this treatment combination.

Of the 7347 AF patients on oral anticoagulation therapy who participated in the study, 2543 (35%) also received aspirin.[40] Among the patients treated with aspirin, 39% did not have a history of atherosclerotic disease and 17% had elevated ATRIA bleeding risk scores. Compared with patients receiving oral anticoagulation alone, those receiving concomitant aspirin had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.20-1.96) and bleeding hospitalizations (adjusted HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.97).[40]

Results from a retrospective study by Sjalander et al of 115,185 Swedish patients with AF indicated that acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) as monotherapy not only did not protect against stroke, but it was also associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke and thromboembolic events in elderly patients, as compared with no antithrombotic treatment.[41] In the study, 58,671 patients received ASA monotherapy, while 56,514 did not receive any antithrombotic treatment at baseline; mean follow-up was 1.5 years. The investigators indicated that their data support European guidelines recommending against the use of ASA monotherapy for preventing stroke in patients with AF.

Several risk factor assessment algorithms have been developed to aid the clinician on decisions on anticoagulation for patients with AF. The CHADS2 index (Cardiac failure, Diabetes, Stroke [or S2 = transient ischemic attack]) is the most widely used of these algorithms.[42] The CHADS2 index uses a point system to determine yearly thromboembolic risk. Two points are assigned for a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and one point is given for age older than 75 years or a history of hypertension, diabetes, or heart failure.

The predictive value of this scoring system was evaluated in 1733 elderly patients with nonvalvular AF aged 65-95 years who were not given warfarin at hospital discharge. Although high scores were associated with an increased rate of stroke, few patients had a score greater than 5 or a score of 0 (see Table 2 below). However, the CHA2 DS2 -VASc (CHA2 DS2 -Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category) score better predicts patients at high-risk as well as those categorized at low risk for thromboembolism.[43]

Table 2. Adjusted Stroke Rate in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation not Treated with Anticoagulation (Open Table in a new window)

CHADS2 Score Adjusted Stroke Rate (%/y)
0 1.9
1 2.8
2 4.0
3 5.9
4 8.5
5 12.5
6 18.2

In fact, the American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgery, released new AF guidelines in 2014, including the recommendation that for estimation of the stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular AF, the CHADS2 score be replaced with the more comprehensive CHA2 DS2 -VASc score.[44, 45]

In this scoring system, 1 point is assigned for each of the following[44, 45] : congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, diabetes, vascular disease (myocardial infarction [MI], peripheral arterial disease, aortic plaque), age 65-74 years, and female sex. Two points each are assigned for age 75 years or older and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)/thromboembolism. The updated guidelines also state the following[44, 45] :

  • Evidence indicates that aspirin’s use as a means of lowering stroke risk in patients with AF should be reduced or eliminated
  • In addition to warfarin, 3 new anticoagulants are recommended for patients with nonvalvular AF who have previously suffered a stroke or TIA or whose CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score is 2 or above: dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, and apixaban
  • Radiofrequency catheter ablation can be used as initial treatment in recurrent symptomatic paroxysmal AF

Recommendations on anticoagulation for patients with nonvalvular AF have been based on the 2006 ACC/AHA/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) task force guidelines on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (see Table 3 below).[2, 46]

Table 3. Recommendations for Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (Open Table in a new window)

Risk Category Recommended Therapy
No risk factors Aspirin 81-325 mg daily
One moderate-risk factor Aspirin 81-325 mg daily or warfarin (INR 2-3)
Any high-risk factor or more than 1 moderate-risk factor Warfarin (INR 2-3)

High-risk factors include prior stroke, TIA, and systemic thromboembolism. Moderate-risk factors include age older than 75 years, hypertension, heart failure, left ventricular function less than 35%, and diabetes mellitus. Risk factors of unknown significance include female sex, age 65-74 years, coronary artery disease, and thyrotoxicosis.

Previous
Next

Management of New-Onset AF

The AFFIRM study and similar findings from the smaller Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion (RACE) trial[47] have led to the development of consensus guidelines that recommend an initial rate-control strategy for many asymptomatic patients with atrial fibrillation.

The ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines state that an initial rate-control strategy is "reasonable" for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic older patients with hypertension and comorbid cardiovascular disease.[2] These same guidelines state that for younger individuals, especially those without significant comorbid cardiovascular disease, an initial rhythm-control strategy may be a better approach.

Rate control

Regardless of the long-term management strategy chosen, control of ventricular rate is a critical component of management of new-onset AF. The main determinants of the ventricular rate during AF are those intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence atrioventricular (AV) conduction. Foremost among these are the intrinsic AV nodal conduction properties. Underlying sympathetic and parasympathetic tone also influences AV nodal conduction. Rate-controlling agents act primarily by increasing AV nodal refractoriness.

Beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers are first-line agents for rate control in AF. These drugs can be administered either intravenously or orally. They are effective at rest and with exertion. Intravenous diltiazem or metoprolol are commonly used for AF with a rapid ventricular response. Caution should be exercised in patients with reactive airway disease who are given beta-blockers.

Digoxin can be used in the acute setting but does little to control the ventricular rate in active patients. As such, it is rarely used as monotherapy. Caution should be exercised in elderly patients and those with renal failure receiving digoxin. Digoxin is indicated in patients with heart failure and reduced LV function.

A large study of elderly persons with nonvalvular AF or atrial flutter indicated that digoxin therapy can increase the risk that a patient will die within approximately 3 years by more than 20%.[48, 49] The study, The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF (TREAT-AF), involved more than 122,000 elderly US veterans (mean age 72 years) with newly diagnosed AF or atrial flutter, almost a quarter of whom underwent early therapy with digoxin. After a follow-up period of about 3 years, the multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio for patient mortality was calculated to be 1.26 in the digoxin group. According to the investigators, the increased mortality risk was not associated with drug adherence, concomitant treatment, comorbid cardiovascular disorders, or renal function.[48, 49]

Amiodarone has a class IIa recommendation from the ACC/AHA/ESC for use as a rate-controlling agent for patients who are intolerant of or unresponsive to other agents, such as patients with CHF who may otherwise not tolerate diltiazem or metoprolol. Caution should be exercised in those who are not receiving anticoagulation, as amiodarone can promote cardioversion.

Extreme care must be taken in patients with preexcitation syndrome and AF. Blocking the AV node in some of these patients may lead to AF impulses that are transmitted exclusively down the accessory pathway, and this can result in ventricular fibrillation. (If this happens, the patient will require immediate defibrillation.) Calcium channel blockers and digoxin are contraindicated in these patients; flecainide or amiodarone can be used instead.[50]

Anticoagulation

One of the most important considerations in the acute management of atrial fibrillation is the need for anticoagulation (see the image below). Acute cardioversion for AF carries a risk of thromboembolism unless anticoagulation therapy is initiated prior to the procedure and continued post procedure. Risk of thromboembolism is similar in patients undergoing either pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion. The risk of thromboembolic events is greatest when AF has been present for longer than 48 hours. TEE is a good predictor of acute risk. If no thrombus is seen in the cardiac chambers, particularly the left atrial appendage, and dense spontaneous echo contrast is not seen, cardioversion has low acute risk of stroke. Effective anticoagulation in patients with AF reduces the risk of stroke 3-fold after 4-6 weeks.

Patient management for newly diagnosed atrial fibr Patient management for newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. Subtherapeutic INR: INR < 2 for 3 consecutive weeks. Warfarin: INR target 2-3. TEE/cardioversion: low molecular weight heparin 1 mg/kg bid as a bridge with initiation of warfarin INR 2-3.

Patients with newly diagnosed AF and patients awaiting electrical cardioversion can be started on intravenous heparin (activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT] of 45-60 seconds) or low-molecular-weight heparin (1 mg/kg bid).

Patients can be started concomitantly on warfarin in an inpatient setting while awaiting a therapeutic INR value (2-3). Many practices have developed specialized anticoagulation clinics to monitor INR values closely. Oral direct thrombin inhibitors may present an alternative to warfarin in a higher-risk population with nonvalvular AF.

Dabigatran (Pradaxa) is a newer oral anticoagulant that appears to be at least as effective as warfarin, with added expense but also added safety. Unlike warfarin, dabigatran does not require serial INR (PT) blood tests and is not significantly affected by almost any medication or vitamin (almost any pill can displace warfarin from serum albumen and thus increase the INR).

Several scoring systems have been developed to estimate risk-benefit for warfarin use in AF (summarized below). The BAFTA trial suggests the risk of thromboembolism is underestimated in individuals older than 75 years, with the further suggesting that all patients older than 75 years with episodes of AF lasting longer than 24 hours should be considered for anticoagulation. In the highest-risk population (eg, AF with valvular heart disease or prior embolic cerebrovascular accident), bridging anticoagulation with heparins may be required in the periprocedural period.

The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study demonstrated that a 5-point risk stratification scheme (ie, anemia, severe renal disease, age, prior bleeding, and hypertension) was effective in quantifying the risk for major hemorrhage among patients with AF receiving warfarin.[51]

Another new anticoagulant, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), was approved by the FDA in November 2011 for nonvalvular AF.[52] It is a highly selective direct Factor Xa inhibitor with oral bioavailability, with rapid onset of action. Clinical trial data have shown that it allows predictable anticoagulation with no need for dose adjustments and routine coagulation monitoring.[53]

Approval of Xarelto was based on the ROCKET AF multicenter trial. The multinational, double-blind study included over 14,000 patients who were randomized to either rivaroxaban or warfarin. In the primary analysis of this study (n=429), rivaroxaban was found to be noninferior to warfarin for prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular AF. A significant difference was observed for intracranial hemorrhage and fatal bleeding with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.[54] During the approval process, concern was expressed over the amount of time the warfarin-treated patients spent at the optimal INR during the study (57.8%), which was lower than in other trials with warfarin (eg, RE-LY trial for dabigatran).[55]

Another new Factor Xa inhibitor, apixaban (Eliquis), was approved by the FDA in December 2012. Approval was based on 2 clinical trials. The ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial compared apixaban with warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. Results showed that apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality.[56, 57, 58]

The second trial, AVERROES (Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid [ASA] to Prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment), compared apixaban with aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation for whom warfarin therapy was considered unsuitable. The trial was stopped early at an interim analysis because apixaban showed a significant reduction in stroke and systemic embolism compared with aspirin. A modest increase of major bleeding was observed with apixaban compared with aspirin.[59]

Although the FDA gave the drug its approval, the agency also provided a warning that patients with a prosthetic heart valve or AF caused by a heart valve problem should not take apixaban.[60]

Reversal of anticoagulation

In April 2013, the FDA approved a new therapy for the urgent reversal of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulation in adults with acute major bleeding, a problem sometimes experienced by patients with atrial fibrillation. Unlike plasma, the new product (prothrombin complex concentrate, human) does not require blood group typing or thawing and is administered in a significantly lower volume than plasma.[61]

Approval was based on a study of 216 patients receiving VKA anticoagulation. Results showed that the new therapy resembled plasma in its ability to stop acute major bleeding.

Cardioversion

Cardioversion may be performed electively or emergently to restore sinus rhythm in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Cardioversion is most successful when initiated within 7 days after onset of AF. The need for cardioversion may be acute when AF is responsible for hypotension, heart failure, or angina.

Pharmacologic agents or direct current energy can be used to cardiovert patients with AF. Pharmacologic cardioversion has the advantage of not requiring sedation or anesthesia, but the major disadvantage is the risk of ventricular tachycardia and other serious arrhythmias.

Previous
Next

Long-Term Management

Long-term management of atrial fibrillation is focused on reducing the likelihood of AF recurrence, reducing AF-related symptoms, control of ventricular rate, and reducing stroke risk. As discussed previously, AF is often the result of established cardiovascular risk factors. Appropriate management of these risk factors will reduce the likelihood of future episodes of AF and AF-related morbidity and mortality. Anticoagulation with either aspirin or warfarin should be initiated for all individuals with AF, except those with lone AF or contraindications. Selection of the appropriate antithrombotic regimen for a given patient should be balanced between the risk of stroke and the risk of bleeding. Antiarrhythmic therapy can aid in maintenance of sinus rhythm in certain patients but requires close monitoring.

Optimal long-term strategies for AF management should be based on a thoroughly integrated consideration of patient-specific factors and likelihood of success. As a rule, younger patients with more severe symptoms and fewer comorbidities tend to derive greater benefit from a long-term focus on rhythm control. Older patients with structural heart disease (eg, left ventricular hypertrophy, prior MI, depressed ejection fraction, atrial dilation) are less likely to remain in sinus rhythm and are more likely to have serious side effects from antiarrhythmic drugs. In this cohort, most clinicians focus on long-term rate control.

Because of the electrophysiologic and structural remodeling caused by AF, many patients with paroxysmal AF will progress to persistent and permanent AF. The degree to which this reflects the continuing influence of underlying cardiovascular risk factors as opposed to a direct effect of AF is unknown. Regardless, clinicians need to reevaluate their management strategies frequently, as AF burden and comorbidities increase with time.

Anticoagulation

The goal of long-term anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation is to reduce the risk of thromboembolism. Patients in AF have a risk of stroke or peripheral embolism that is approximately 5 times that of individuals in sinus rhythm. Recommendations for anticoagulation for patients with nonvalvular AF are based on guidelines from a 2006 ACC/AHA/ESC task force on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation.[7]

Anticoagulation therapy with warfarin is significantly more effective than antiplatelet therapy (relative risk of 40%) if the INR is adjusted. The INR goal in AF is usually between 2 and 3, except in patients who are at a significant risk for stroke (eg, patients with artificial valves, those with rheumatic heart disease, and those at a high risk for AF with recurrent prior strokes), in whom the INR should be maintained between 2.5 and 3.5. A lower INR goal (1.8-2) may be considered in elderly patients who are at high risk for a fall.

Anticoagulation clinics have shown more success and a lower complication rate than primary care physicians in controlling patients’ INR. In addition, one study reported that patients who used an Internet-based program for patient self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy achieved a higher mean time in the therapeutic range than patients whose INR was controlled by an established anticoagulation clinic.[62] Similar programs alone or in combination with regular care provided by anticoagulation clinics may improve the mean time that patients are in the therapeutic range and may further reduce the risk of stroke.

As patients with AF age, the relative efficacy of oral anticoagulation appears not to decrease, whereas the efficacy of antiplatelet therapy does appear to decrease, according to a study by van Walraven.[63]

Several scoring systems have been developed to estimate risk-benefit for Coumadin use in AF (summarized below). The BAFTA trial suggests the risk of thromboembolism is underestimated in individuals older than 75 years, with the further suggesting that all patients older than 75 years with episodes of AF lasting longer than 24 hours should be considered for anticoagulation.

The major adverse effect of anticoagulation therapy with warfarin is bleeding. Factors that increase this risk include the following:

  • History of bleeding (the strongest predictive risk factor)
  • Age older than 75 years
  • Liver or renal disease
  • Malignancy
  • Thrombocytopenia or aspirin use
  • Hypertension
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Anemia
  • Prior stroke
  • Fall risk
  • Genetic predisposition
  • Supratherapeutic INR

Several risk models have been introduced. The risk model called HEMORR2HAGES assigns points to risk factors, as follows[64] :

  • History of bleeding (2 points)
  • Hepatic or renal disease (1 point)
  • Alcohol abuse (1 point)
  • Malignancy (1 point)
  • Older age (>75 y) (1 point)
  • Reduced platelet count or function, including aspirin therapy (1 point)
  • Hypertension (1 point)
  • Anemia (1 point)
  • Genetic predisposition (1 point)
  • Excessive fall risk (1 point)
  • Stroke (1 point)

Using this scoring, the risks of a major bleeding event per 100 patient-years of warfarin therapy are as follows:

  • 0 points - 1.9%
  • 1 point - 2.5%
  • 2 points - 5.3%
  • 3 points - 8.4%
  • 4 points - 10.4%
  • 5 or more points - 12.3%

When the bleeding risk outweighs the benefit, avoidance of anticoagulation therapy in AF should be considered. In addition, because of its teratogenic effects, anticoagulation with warfarin is contraindicated in pregnant women, especially in the first trimester.

According to the 2011 update to ACCF/AHA/HRS guidelines on atrial fibrillation, if warfarin will not be used, adding clopidogrel to aspirin may be considered.[3] However, note that concomitant use of aspirin with oral anticoagulation has a significantly increased risk for bleeding among those receiving both therapies and increased hospitalizations due to bleeding events.[40]

A meta-analysis of 4 randomized trials involving 42,411 patients who received newer anticoagulants and 29,272 who received warfarin showed that, in patients with atrial fibrillation, the newer oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban protected against stroke or systemic embolism better than warfarin and had comparable safety profiles. The newer anticoagulants also significantly reduced all-cause mortality and intracranial hemorrhage, but increased gastrointestinal bleeding. Median follow-ups ranged from 1.8 years to 2.8 years. The risk of stroke or systemic embolic events was reduced by 19% with the newer anticoagulants compared with warfarin; hemorrhagic strokes accounted for a large proportion of the reduction. Compared with warfarin, low-dose new anticoagulant regimens showed similar overall reductions in stroke or systemic embolic events and a more favorable bleeding profile, but significantly more ischemic strokes.[65, 66, 67, 68]

Dabigatran

The RE-LY study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 different doses of dabigatran relative to warfarin in more than 18,000 patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) adjusted dose warfarin, (2) dabigatran 110 mg bid, or (3) dabigatran 150 mg bid. Dabigatran 110 mg was noninferior to warfarin for the primary efficacy endpoint of stroke or systemic embolization, while dabigatran 150 mg was significantly more effective than warfarin or dabigatran 110 mg. Major bleeding occurred significantly less often with dabigatran 110 mg than warfarin; dabigatran 150 mg had similar bleeding to warfarin.[55, 69]

A meta-analysis by Uchino and Hernandez evaluated the risk of myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with the use of dabigatran. The results suggest the risk of myocardial infarction or ACS was similar when using revised RE-LY trial results. Dabigatran is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or ACS in an extensive range of patients when tested against different controls.[70]

Another study, a meta-analysis involving more than 1000 patients, found that major bleeding complications were generally less critical and more manageable in patients being treated with dabigatran than in those on warfarin therapy. For instance, in patients treated with dabigatran, the worst major bleeds tended to be gastrointestinal, while in patients treated with warfarin, most of the worst bleeds were intracranial and therefore more difficult to treat. In addition, among patients with major bleeds, the dabigatran patients spent less time in intensive care and had a lower mortality rate than did the warfarin patients.[71, 72]

Guidelines from the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF)/American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) on atrial fibrillation have been updated to include the use of oral direct thrombin inhibitors (ie, dabigatran).[4] The guidelines include a class Ib recommendation (ie, treatment is useful/effective based on a single randomized trial) for dabigatran.

The guidelines recommend dabigatran may be used as an alternative to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in patients with paroxysmal-to-permanent atrial fibrillation and risk factors for stroke or systemic embolization. Patients with atrial fibrillation who are not candidates include those with prosthetic heart valves or hemodynamically significant valve disease, severe renal failure (creatinine clearance ≤15 mL/min), or advanced liver disease.

Postoperative and postdischarge anticoagulation therapy

Anticoagulation prior to and during an elective surgery may be continued or stopped depending on the patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of thromboembolism. If the risk of thromboembolism is high (stratified by the CHADS2 score) and the risk of bleeding is low, anticoagulation should be continued with the INR in the low therapeutic range. However, a high risk of bleeding during the procedure should prompt discontinuation of warfarin for 3-5 days prior to surgery. These patients should then be treated with heparin prior to and following the operation to allow discontinuation of anticoagulation if bleeding occurs.

In general, patients who develop AF only postoperatively do not need anticoagulation. Administration of preoperative and postoperative beta-blockers is usually sufficient, as postoperative AF is usually paroxysmal and tends to terminate spontaneously. The Colchicine for the Prevention of the Postpericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) Atrial Fibrillation Substudy found that the administering of colchicine appears to be safe and efficacious in the reduction of postoperative AF, which could potentially halve the complication and reduce the time a patient stays in the hospital.[73]

Research has shown that the administration of colchicine in patients who underwent pulmonary vein isolation helped to prevent early recurrences of paroxysmal AF.[74, 75] This process appeared to be mediated through a postablation reduction in inflammation.

A mutation in coagulation factor IX may cause spontaneous bleeding even with INR in the therapeutic range. Adverse effects of warfarin therapy are not limited to bleeding, however; other important side effects include skin necrosis within the first few days of therapy and cholesterol embolization to the skin or visceral organs in the first few weeks of therapy.

A large cohort study in Denmark compared bleeding risk of anticoagulants prescribed upon hospital discharge for atrial fibrillation. During mean follow-up (3.3 y), 11.4% of patients experienced a nonfatal or fatal bleeding episode. The highest incidence for bleeding was observed for dual therapy with warfarin and clopidogrel and for triple therapy with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel (3-fold higher risk) compared with single agent use.[76]

Recommendations from the American Academy of Neurology

In 2014, the American Academy of Neurology released level B and C recommendations on the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF. The level B recommendations included the following[77, 78] :

  • Patients with nonvalvular AF should be informed that the potential benefit of antithrombotic treatment in reducing stroke risk must be weighed against an increased risk for major bleeding from such therapy
  • Patients with nonvalvular AF and a history of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke should routinely be offered anticoagulation therapy
  • Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban, which are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, should be administered to patients with a higher intracranial bleeding risk
  • Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban should also be administered to patients who refuse or are unable to undergo frequent periodic testing of their international normalized ratio (INR)
  • Oral anticoagulants should routinely be offered to elderly patients (aged >75 years) with nonvalvular AF who do not have a history of recent, unprovoked bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage
  • Patients with nonvalvular AF who have dementia or who suffer occasional falls can be offered oral anticoagulation, but patients or their families should be informed that the risk-benefit ratio of such therapy is uncertain in patients who have moderate to severe dementia or who suffer very frequent falls
  • In developing countries, where newer anticoagulants may be unavailable or too expensive, the guidelines state that in patients who have a moderate stroke risk, the use of triflusal 600 mg/day in combination with moderate anticoagulation (INR 1.25-2.0) with acenocoumarol is probably more effective in reducing stroke risk than is the use of acenocoumarol by itself at the higher INR (2.0-3.0)
  • A risk-stratification scheme should be used by clinicians to help them decide which patients with nonvalvular AF would particularly benefit from anticoagulation therapy, but it should not be the definitive means of making such decisions

Omega-3 fatty acids

Several small trials have suggested that treatment for paroxysmal AF with prescription omega-3 fatty acids may provide a safe and effective treatment option. However, no benefit has been found to date.[79, 80]

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ACE receptor blockers (ARB)

Trials examining the incidence of AF in patients with heart failure who are treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs have demonstrated a potential beneficial effect on AF recurrence. This recurrence is thought to be mediated by blocking the rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the downstream effects on atrial mechanical and electrical remodeling.[81, 82, 83]

A study by Yusuf et al examined the effects of irbesartan in patients with permanent AF or at least 2 episodes of paroxysmal AF in the previous 6 months.[84] Irbesartan did not demonstrate a benefit in patients with AF who were already receiving an ACE inhibitor or patients in sinus rhythm. No reduction in cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was noted in the patient population studied.

Rate control

As discussed previously, several trials have validated the noninferiority of an initial rate-control strategy. Many clinicians believe, however, that an attempt at a rhythm-control strategy should be made in most patients. Older patients with comorbid cardiovascular disease have a lower likelihood of successful long-term rhythm control, and thus, these patients are often managed using a rate-control strategy. Some patients managed initially with a rhythm-control strategy will progress to recurrent or persistent AF. Clinicians often switch to a rate-control strategy as the AF burden increases.

Effectiveness of rate control should be assessed both at rest and with exertion, especially in patients who experience primarily exertional AF-related symptoms. Twenty-four hour Holter monitoring or exercise-treadmill testing can be helpful in evaluating heart rate variability.

Adequate rate control was previously defined as a heart rate of 60-80 bpm at rest and 90-115 bpm with moderate exercise. However, ACCF/AHA/HRS guidelines on management of atrial fibrillation were updated in 2011 to state that there was no benefit in achieving strict heart rate control (< 80 bpm at rest, < 110 bpm after a 6-minute walk) relative to more lenient rate control (< 110 bpm at rest). Strict rate control in patients with stable ventricular function is no longer recommended.[3]

AV nodal blocking medications are the cornerstone of rate control in long-standing AF. In the absence of an accessory pathway, oral beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and digoxin are effective. Generally, coadministration of beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers is reserved for patients in whom adequate rate control cannot be achieved with a single agent.

Digoxin can be effective in sedentary patients (especially in those with heart failure) but requires close monitoring of drug levels and renal function. Combinations of rate-control medications (eg, beta-blocker and digoxin) may be superior to individual agents in some patients.

Amiodarone may contribute to ventricular rate control. On the other hand, antiarrhythmic agents may organize AF to a potentially life-threatening atrial flutter with 1:1 AV conduction. Particularly with class IC agents, maintenance of effective AV nodal rate control is essential in most patients. Therefore, administration of a beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker is recommended before class IC drugs are initiated.

In the presence of tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy or inadequate ventricular rate control despite drug therapy, AV nodal ablation and pacemaker implantation may be considered.

Rhythm control

Maintenance of sinus rhythm requires treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and any underlying disorder (ie, hyperthyroidism) that may have triggered AF. As mentioned previously, several antiarrhythmic drugs (flecainide, propafenone, dofetilide, amiodarone) have established efficacy in the pharmacologic conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. The noncardiac adverse effects and contraindications of each drug should be checked prior to administration.

Amiodarone, as a part of a strategy to achieve sinus rhythm, appears to be safe and effective in patients with persistent AF, according to Doyle and Ho. However, in their study, intolerable adverse effects were more common with amiodarone than with placebo or rate-control drugs.[85] Nevertheless, in patients with cardiac disease such as coronary artery disease or systolic or diastolic heart failure, amiodarone becomes the drug of choice because of its decreased proarrhythmic effects compared with other antiarrhythmic drugs.[50]

Amiodarone was also found to be more effective at maintaining sinus rhythm than other drugs in the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation (CTAF) and the Sotalol Amiodarone Atrial Fibrillation Efficacy Trial (SAFE-T).[5, 86]

The 2011 update to the ACCF/AHA/HRS AF guideline adds that it is reasonable to use dronedarone to reduce the probability that hospitalization will be required for patients with paroxysmal AF or after conversion of persistent AF. Class IV heart failure or a recent episode of decompensated heart failure are contraindications.[3] Dronedarone is not approved for permanent atrial fibrillation.

Dronedarone was found to be associated with increased mortality in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. A recent randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, the Permanent Atrial fibriLLation Outcome Study Using Dronedarone on Top of Standard Therapy (PALLAS) study, was halted following a preliminary review that revealed that dronedarone was associated with a 2-fold rise in risk of death. Two-fold increases in 2 other endpoints, stroke and hospitalization for heart failure, were also noted when compared with placebo. Healthcare professionals are advised by the FDA not to prescribe dronedarone to patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. The FDA is currently analyzing whether the PALLAS results apply to patients taking dronedarone for paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. The study results are considered preliminary at this time because the data have not undergone quality assurance procedures and have not been completely adjudicated.[87]

A separate study by Connolly et al also found that dronedarone increased rates of heart failure, stroke, and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation who were at risk for major vascular events; the authors of that study suggest that dronedarone should not be used in this group of patients.[88]

Several distinct agents, most notably sotalol, are used for the long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm. Sotalol is efficacious, but as with other class III drugs, it requires close monitoring of the QT interval and serum electrolytes. Sotalol is associated with the risk of QT interval prolongation and torsade de pointes. The proarrhythmic effect of sotalol is increased in patients with CHF (unlike dofetilide and amiodarone), so it is generally contraindicated in such patients or in those with a prolonged QT interval. Hypokalemia should be corrected and monitored prior to administration of sotalol because it may also prolong the QT interval. Sotalol can be used in patients with coronary artery disease.[50]

In a study of 99 consecutive patients with persistent AF, atrial flutter, or both, patients whose AF responded to chemical cardioversion with dofetilide were particularly vulnerable to proarrhythmias. Of the 99 patients, 46 had successful cardioversion after an average of 2.2 doses of dofetilide, and 53 required electrical cardioversion after an average of 4.7 doses. Of the 21 patients who chemically converted with only 1 dose of dofetilide, 15 developed QT prolongation and had to either adjust their dose or discontinue treatment. In contrast, only 1 patient in the electrical conversion group had to discontinue treatment because of QT prolongation. In all, 2% of the patients in the electrical conversion group and 17% of those in the dofetilide-sensitive group had to discontinue treatment because of QT prolongation (P = 0.007).[89, 90]

Class III agents (sotalol, amiodarone) also have some beta-blocking effect and should be used with caution in patients with a history of bradycardia.

Class Ic drugs increased the mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease during the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) and therefore should not be used in these patients.[91]

Class Ic drugs increased the mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease during the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) and therefore should not be used in these patients.[86]

Catheter ablation performed in experienced centers is recommended in the 2011 update to the ACCF/AHA/HRS AF guidelines for several indications:[57]

  • It is recommended as an alternative to pharmacologic therapy to prevent recurrent paroxysmal AF in significantly symptomatic patients with little or no structural heart disease [5] or severe pulmonary disease (Class I, evidence level A).
  • It is reasonable as a treatment for symptomatic persistent AF.
  • Catheter ablation may be reasonable as a treatment for symptomatic paroxysmal AF in patients with some structural heart disease.

An assessment by Hoyt et al of all patients undergoing AF ablation at Johns Hopkins Hospital between February 2001 and December 2010 found that the complication rate of catheter ablation of AF decreased with increased institutional experience.[92]

Surgical ablation of AF is also an option for patients with AF undergoing other cardiac surgery and for those patients in whom pharmacologic and catheter-based procedures are ineffective or contraindicated. Atrial fibrillation ablation may be superior to AV nodal ablation and biventricular pacing in heart failure patients but is technically difficult and demanding, and the widespread applicability of ablation in this population of patients is uncertain.

In the first randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation versus minimally invasive surgical ablation during a 12-month follow-up, Boersma et al found that patients with AF who had a dilated left atrium and hypertension or who failed prior AF catheter ablation, surgical ablation was superior in achieving freedom from left atrial arrhythmias after 12 months of follow-up; however, the procedural adverse event rate was found to be significantly higher with surgical ablation than for catheter ablation, primarily postoperative pneumothorax, major bleeding, and an increased need for permanent pacing.[93]

Go to Catheter Ablation for complete information on this topic.

New medical and device-based rhythm-control therapies are being explored actively. Experimental and clinical data suggest that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) antagonists and HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors (statins) may decrease the incidence of AF and increase the likelihood of successful cardioversion.[94, 95, 96, 97] Device-based therapies under investigation include single- and dual-site atrial pacemakers to prevent AF, as well as atrial defibrillators to rapidly restore sinus rhythm. Invasive (surgical and catheter-based) therapies to compartmentalize the atria and localize focal triggers (in the pulmonary veins) are being evaluated and refined. (See Surgical Care.)

Electrical cardioversion

Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, who have severe dyspnea or chest pain with atrial fibrillation, or who have preexcited atrial fibrillation should undergo urgent cardioversion.[50] In stable patients with symptomatic new-onset AF, the rate-control strategy may be considered first to control the ventricular rate. If rate-control treatment does not elicit a response or if echocardiography does not reveal any valvular or functional abnormality of the heart, cardioversion is indicated.

DC cardioversion is the delivery of electrical current that is synchronized to the QRS complexes; it can be delivered in monophasic or biphasic waveforms. The required energy for cardioversion is usually 100-200 J (sometimes higher energy is required) for monophasic waveforms and less for biphasic waveforms. The patient should be sedated. In patients with AF of relatively short duration in whom the left atrium is not significantly large, the success rate of cardioversion exceeds 75% (ie, the size of the left atrium and the duration of AF inversely correlate with the success rate of cardioversion).

Embolization is the most important complication of cardioversion. Accordingly, thrombus in the heart should be ruled out with transesophageal echocardiography, or warfarin should be given for anticoagulation for 4 weeks before cardioversion is performed. Stunning of the atria and stasis can occur after cardioversion, and this can lead to thrombus formation even though the patient is in sinus rhythm. Therefore, the patient should receive anticoagulants for at least 4 weeks following the procedure.

Other complications of electrical cardioversion may include pulmonary edema, hypotension, myocardial dysfunction, and skin burns, which may be avoided with the use of steroid cream and proper technique. Electrical cardioversion is also associated with some ST- and T-wave changes on ECG and may elevate levels of serum cardiac biomarkers. Synchronization prevents serious ventricular arrhythmias.

Placement of pads or paddle positions include anterior-lateral (ventricular apex and right infraclavicular) and anterior-posterior (sternum and left scapular), with at least one study suggesting increased efficacy with the anterior-posterior (AP) method.

Biphasic waveforms are proved to convert AF at lower energies and higher rates than monophasic waveforms. Strategies include dose escalation (70, 120, 150, 170J for biphasic or 100, 200, 300, 360J for monophasic) versus beginning with single high energy/highest success rate for single shock delivered. Patients who are stable and/or awake and can tolerate sedation should be pretreated, with typical regimens involving midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol.

Cardioversion of patients with implanted pacemakers and defibrillator devices is safe when appropriate precautions are taken. Keeping the cardioversion pads in an AP orientation ensures that the shocks are not directly over the generator. Alteration in pacer-programmed data has been reported, as well as heart block and elevated enzymes if the current is conducted through a pacer lead.

Pharmacologic cardioversion

Although pharmacologic cardioversion may be used as the first-line strategy, it is used mainly if DC cardioversion fails or, in some cases, as a precardioversion strategy.

Out-of-hospital self-administration of either flecainide 300 mg or propafenone 600 mg (weight-based dosages if >70 kg) was determined to be successful in terminating AF in 94% of episodes (mean time to symptom resolution of 133 minutes) by Alboni et al. The investigators studied outpatient treatment of atrial fibrillation with a “pill-in-the-pocket” approach in 268 patients with little or no structural heart disease presenting to the emergency department with symptomatic AF.[98]

Pretreatment with amiodarone, flecainide, ibutilide, propafenone, or sotalol has been shown to increase the success rate of DC cardioversion and is recommended by the American College of Cardiology.[7] This strategy is also recommended when DC cardioversion fails and prior to repeat DC cardioversion.[7] Intravenous amiodarone is typically given as a 150-mg bolus over 10-15 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 1 mg/min for 6 hours and then 0.5 mg/min.

Hemodynamically unstable patients (eg, those with hypotension) may not tolerate antiarrhythmic drugs, and the adverse effects and contraindications of each antiarrhythmic drug should be considered carefully before administration. Because of possible proarrhythmic adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs, these patients should be monitored for at least 24 hours, requiring hospitalization in most cases.

The ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines provide the following recommendations regarding pharmacologic conversion of atrial fibrillation[99] :

  • For conversion of AF of 7 days or less, agents with proven efficacy include dofetilide, flecainide, ibutilide, propafenone, and, to a lesser degree, amiodarone and quinidine; less effective or incompletely studied agents include procainamide, digoxin, and sotalol.
  • For conversion of AF lasting 7-90 days, agents with proven efficacy include dofetilide, amiodarone, ibutilide, flecainide, propafenone, and quinidine; less effective or incompletely studied agents include procainamide, sotalol, and digoxin.
  • For conversion of AF lasting more than 90 days, oral propafenone, amiodarone, and dofetilide have been shown to be effective at converting persistent AF to normal sinus rhythm (NSR).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates inpatient monitoring for dofetilide initiation. Patients who start sotalol usually require inpatient monitoring (for torsade de pointes), although patients with no heart disease, with a QT interval less than 450 msec, and with normal electrolytes should be started on outpatient medications.

In 2010, the American Heart Association-American Stroke Association (AHA-ASA) issued its guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke, which included the note that screening patients over 65 years of age for AF in the primary care settings using pulse taking followed by an ECG may be useful. Adjusted-dose warfarin should be used for all patients with nonvalvular AF (target INR 2-3). Aspirin is recommended for low and moderate-risk patients with AF and for high-risk patients unsuitable for anticoagulation; a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin may protection against stroke than aspirin alone.[100]

Special considerations

Postoperative AF is common, and perioperative beta blockers are recommended in all patients undergoing cardiac surgery unless contraindicated.[101] Preoperative administration of amiodarone and sotalol may reduce the incidence of AF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. As such, these agents may be used as prophylactic therapy in those at high risk for postoperative AF.

Postoperative AF was reduced by treatment with Landiolol hydrochloride.[102] Amelioration of ischemia, an anti-inflammatory effect, and inhibition of sympathetic hypertonia by Landiolol presumably reduced the occurrence of AF. Hypotension or bradycardia did not develop in any of the patients, indicating the safety of this beta-blocker. These findings suggest that Landiolol hydrochloride could be useful in the perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Retrospective data suggest that atrial-based pacing (AAI, DDD modes) reduces the risk of developing AF and increases the interval between episodes in patients with sick sinus syndrome.[103]

Previous
Next

Overview of Surgical and Catheter Ablation

The goal of catheter ablation and surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation is to disconnect triggers and/or to modify the substrate for AF. Mapping and radiofrequency (RF) ablation of AF is one of the most complex ablation procedures. Numerous approaches are used depending on the expertise of the cardiac electrophysiologist and characteristics of the AF.

Paroxysmal AF is usually caused by triggered and ectopic activity in pulmonary veins, and ablation around the veins terminates the arrhythmia. In persistent AF, triggering foci and reentry circuits may coexist in the atrial tissue, requiring more extensive mapping and ablation to terminate the AF; this yields a lower success rate than ablation used to treat paroxysmal AF.

Aniarrhythimic drug (AAD) treatment for 6 weeks after ablation of paroxysmal AF was shown to be well tolerated, to reduce the incidence of clinically significant atrial arrhythmias, and to reduce the need for cardioversion or hospital admission during that period, according to Roux et al. Class IC drugs were used as the first line of therapy, and sotalol was the most commonly used drug in cases of LV dysfunction or CAD. Measured outcomes included atrial arrhythmias lasting more than 24 hours; atrial arrhythmias associated with severe symptoms that required hospitalization, cardioversion, or initiation/change of antiarrhythmic drug therapy; and intolerance to antiarrhythmic agent requiring drug cessation.[104]

Hussein et al performed a registry study that examined controls and patients with mitral valve replacement who underwent AF ablation. No cases of catheter entrapment or stroke were reported. Although most patients required more than one ablation, at last follow-up, 69% were arrhythmia-free and no longer taking antiarrhythmic medications. This provides evidence that AF ablation is safe in this group of patients. Of note, many patients had flutter and creation of a flutter line was one of the keys to success.[105]

Previous
Next

Compartmentalization of the Atria

Two approaches to compartmentalization of the atria are surgical, by which multiple cuts are made to the atria, and radiofrequency ablation.

Surgical compartmentalization of the atria (maze procedure)

Since its inception, surgical compartmentalization of the atria, or the “maze” procedure, has evolved as an exciting approach with the potential to cure atrial fibrillation. The procedure involves making a series of small endocardial incisions in the right and left atria to isolate the pulmonary veins and interrupt potential reentrant pathways required for AF maintenance. Early experience showed that atrial transport is restored postoperatively and that long-term anticoagulation is not required.

The downside remains the need for an open chest procedure; however, thoracoscopic procedures may reduce hospitalization and recovery times in the future. The maze procedure remains an attractive procedure for patients with AF who are undergoing concomitant mitral valve procedures. Its role as a primary therapy for AF is doubtful. The role of lesion sets on outcome after maze procedure was studied; the addition of right-sided ablation was found to improve clinical and electrophysiologic results after maze procedure.[106]

Compartmentalization of the atria with continuous ablation lines of blockage

As a parallel to the maze procedure, electrophysiologists are attempting to mimic surgical suture lines with radiofrequency lesions. The procedures tend to last many hours, and success rates are somewhat disappointing (50-60%), with the occurrence of left atrial reentrant tachycardias and left atrial flutters (requiring further ablation procedures).[107]

Researchers are unsure which areas of the atria are necessary to sustain AF. Purely right-sided lesions are not sufficient to eliminate AF, making left atrial procedures necessary. In addition, gaps in linear lesions can be difficult to find.

Research currently focuses on catheter design to deliver linear continuous lesions. Additionally, alternative energy sources (eg, cryotherapy, laser, ultrasound) may improve the ability to deliver transmural lesions in the left atrium.

Previous
Next

Catheter Ablation of Focal Triggers of AF

In some patients, AF appears to be triggered by electrically active pulmonary vein foci.[108] These patients typically have an abundance of ectopic atrial beats noted on 24-hour Holter monitoring. Electrical isolation of individual pulmonary veins, and thus the ectopic foci, is performed successfully at many centers, and patient selection is key to success.

In a study by Santangeli and colleagues, 59% of patients with paroxysmal AF who underwent a single pulmonary vein antrum isolation (PVAI) procedure were arrhythmia free by 10-year follow-up. The study involved 513 adult patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF, all of whom underwent catheter ablation extended to the posterior wall between the pulmonary veins.[109]

Among those patients who underwent multiple procedures for recurrent arrhythmia, Santangeli et al reported that 87% were arrhythmia free by the 10-year mark and that the rate of late recurrence of AF was lower than those reported for segmental and less-extensive antral isolation procedures. However, nonpulmonary vein triggers causing very late recurrence of atrial arrhythmia developed in a significant number of patients.

A combined procedure including individual pulmonary vein isolation, as well as left atrial ablation (ie, encircling pulmonary vein pairs, connecting right and left pairs along the left atrial roof, and connection to the mitral valve annulus), is often necessary. Chest CT or MRI can be used to recreate 3-dimensional anatomy in the left atrium, thus aiding in mapping and creating contiguous lines in the left atrium, as displayed in the video below.

The image on the right is a reconstructed 3-dimensional image of the left atrium in a patient undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation. The figure on the left was created with a mapping catheter using Endocardial Solutions mapping technology. It represents the endocardial shell of the left atrium and is used as the template during left atrial ablation procedures.

The AF cure rate after pulmonary vein isolation may be influenced by sinus node function in both the early and late stages. Although further examinations are required, pulmonary vein isolation may be an adequate treatment for persistent/permanent AF in patients with normal sinus node function.[110]

Patients with paroxysmal AF in whom antiarrhythmic drug therapy does not elicit a response are potential candidates for RF ablation of AF. The threshold for catheter ablation has fallen over the years and is likely to continue to fall. Ablation of persistent AF is more complex and yields lower success rates. Therefore, RF ablation is an option only if antiarrhythmic drugs fail in patients with persistent AF who remain severely symptomatic despite adequate ventricular rate control.[111]

The success rate of RF ablation in the treatment of AF varies depending on the type and duration of AF (ie, paroxysmal vs persistent), structural remodeling of the heart, and the technique and expertise of the cardiac electrophysiologist, but it usually ranges from 60-80% over 1-2 years of follow-up.

Patients opting for AF ablation should be told to expect to undergo repeat ablations because they are not uncommon and they improve overall success.[112] In a randomized, clinical trial, a repeat pulmonary vein isolation procedure was more effective than the use of antiarrhythmic drugs in preventing recurrences of paroxysmal AF.[113, 114] The results of the trial further suggested that switching to antiarrhythmic drugs may give the AF time to worsen.

In this study, 154 patients with a 4- to 5-year history of symptomatic AF before the first ablation were randomized to antiarrhythmics or to repeat pulmonary vein isolation.[114] By 3 months, the AF burden was significantly lower in the repeat pulmonary vein isolation group than in the antiarrhythmics group (1.9% vs 3.3%). The AF burden then began to rise in the antiarrhythmics group, reaching 18.8% by 36 months. In contrast, the AF burden did not begin to rise in the reablation group until 15 months after the procedure, reaching just 5.6% at 36 months.

Complications associated with RF ablation of AF include cardiac perforation, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, vascular access complications, pulmonary vein stenosis, thromboembolism, atrioesophageal fistula, and left atrial flutter. Pulmonary vein stenosis develops in about 6% of patients and may cause dyspnea, chest pain, cough, and hemoptysis.[7] If pulmonary vein stenosis is suspected following RF ablation, further diagnostic workup with TEE, spiral CT scanning, or MRI is recommended. MRI is the most accurate test in diagnosing this complication. Patients with pulmonary vein stenosis should undergo percutaneous angioplasty, which can significantly improve pulmonary blood flow and the patient's symptoms.

Go to Catheter Ablation for complete information on this topic.

Previous
Next

AV Node Ablation and Permanent Pacemakers

AV node ablation may be an alternative in patients with persistent AF and an uncontrolled ventricular response despite aggressive medical therapy. Catheter ablation of the AV junction permanently interrupts conduction from the atria to the ventricles.

Because the result is permanent AV block, a permanent ventricular pacemaker is required. AF may still be present, but the pacemaker governs the ventricular response. The risk of thromboembolism is unchanged, and patients still require anticoagulation; however, most patients are relieved of their symptoms. During the first 1-3 months, the pacing rate must be programmed in the 80- to 90-beat range to prevent torsade de pointes, which presumably occurs because of slow ventricular rates and early after-depolarizations. In patients with significant ventricular dysfunction and permanent ventricular pacing, a biventricular device may be appropriate.[115] Improvements in LV size and function, functional class, and quality-of-life scores have been demonstrated.[116]

Previous
Next

Left Atrial Appendage Percutaneous Closure

Embolic stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF is thought to be associated with left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombi. LAA closure may be a suitable alternative to chronic warfarin therapy for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular AF, according to Holmes and colleagues. The investigators compared the efficacy and safety of LAA percutaneous closure with warfarin therapy in patients with AF, and follow-up at the point of 1065 patient-years showed the intervention group (LAA closure without warfarin treatment) event rate was 3 per 100 patient-years compared with the control group (patients given warfarin) event rate of 4.9 per 100 patient-years.[117]

In a systematic review that included 3 trials comprising 1165 participants, investigators indicated that LAA occlusion with a Watchman device may be as effective as warfarin in stroke prevention in patients with AF, particularly ischemic stroke, as well as mortality reduction.[10] Larger trials are needed to evaluate these data.

Previous
Next

Consultations

Consultation with a cardiac electrophysiologist or knowledgeable clinician is recommended prior to antiarrhythmic drug initiation.

A cardiologist may be consulted emergently if complicating factors are present or if the patient is experiencing ongoing cardiac ischemia or infarction not treatable with DC cardioversion, rate-reduction measures, and standard chest pain protocols.[118] A patient with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and new-onset AF who is stable may benefit from simple rate-control measures (eg, intravenous beta-blockers) while being prepared for the catheterization laboratory and while intravenous nitrates, heparin, and aspirin are begun. In the patient with an ST elevation MI, the main emphasis, however, is to minimize door-to-open-artery time.

A patient's cardiologist plays a vital role in determining the most appropriate long-term strategy for a patient with AF and provides crucial follow-up care.

Previous
Next

Long Term Monitoring

RF ablation of atrial fibrillation

Patients who undergo RF ablation of atrial fibrillation should be monitored for the signs and symptoms of potential complications, such as the following:

  • Cardiac perforation
  • Pericardial effusion
  • Cardiac tamponade
  • Vascular access complications
  • Pulmonary vein stenosis
  • Thromboembolism
  • Atrioesophageal fistula
  • Left atrial flutter

In addition, AF can recur and most episodes are asymptomatic. Therefore, it is important to monitor for signs and symptoms of recurrent AF in follow-up visits and to administer appropriate diagnostic tests if recurrence is suspected. In a prospective study (2011-2014)  that evaluated conventional intermittent Holter and ECG monitoring for recurrent AF following surgical ablation with continuous monitoring via an implantable loop recorder (ILR) in 47 patients, compliance at 12 months was 93% for IRL, 76% for Holter monitoring, and 85% for ECG monitoring.[119] Moreover, detection of atrial tachyarrhythmias was equivalent between continuous monitoring with ILR and intermittent Holter and ECG monitoring. However, the investigator cautioned that these data were limited for broad use of continuous monitoring owing to a high rate of false-positive results (54%) and a limited number of events available for review (11%).[119]

Further outpatient care

Assessment and reassessment of thromboembolic risk is necessary, and periodic ECG monitoring (especially when taking antiarrhythmics) and Holter monitoring are often necessary to assess for paroxysmal AF and/or rate control.

Deterrence/prevention

Experimental and clinical data suggest that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) antagonists and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) may decrease the incidence of AF and increase the likelihood of successful cardioversion.[94, 95, 96, 97]

In addition, treatment of underlying cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, CAD, valvular heart disease, obesity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and heart failure is likely to decrease the incidence of AF. Fish oil preparations have also been shown to reduce ventricular arrhythmias in at-risk populations (CAD) and may also protect against AF.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Lawrence Rosenthal, MD, PhD, FACC, FHRS Associate Professor of Medicine, Director, Section of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology, Director of EP Fellowship Program, Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center

Lawrence Rosenthal, MD, PhD, FACC, FHRS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, Massachusetts Medical Society, American Heart Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

David D McManus, MD, MSc, FACC, FHRS Director, Atrial Fibrillation Program, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Jeffrey N Rottman, MD Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine; Cardiologist/Electrophysiologist, University of Maryland Medical System and VA Maryland Health Care System

Jeffrey N Rottman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Heart Association, Heart Rhythm Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Pierre Borczuk, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate in Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital

Pierre Borczuk, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

David FM Brown, MD Associate Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital

David FM Brown, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Abraham G Kocheril, MD, FACC, FACP, FHRS Professor of Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine

Abraham G Kocheril, MD, FACC, FACP, FHRS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, Central Society for Clinical Research, Heart Failure Society of America, and Illinois State Medical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

William Lober, MD, MS Associate Professor, Health Informatics and Global Health, Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health, University of Washington

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Brian Olshansky, MD Professor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa College of Medicine

Brian Olshansky, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, and Heart Rhythm Society

Disclosure: Guidant/Boston Scientific Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Medtronic Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Guidant/Boston Scientific Consulting fee Consulting

Gary Setnik, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital; Assistant Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Gary Setnik, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians, National Association of EMS Physicians, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: SironaHealth Salary Management position; South Middlesex EMS Consortium Salary Management position; ProceduresConsult.com Royalty Other

Ali A Sovari, MD, FACP Clinical and Research Fellow in Cardiovascular Medicine, Section of Cardiology, University of Illinois College of Medicine; Staff Physician and Hospitalist, St John Regional Medical Center, Cogent Healthcare, Inc

Ali A Sovari, MD, FACP is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, American Physiological Society, and Heart Rhythm Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

References
  1. Zimetbaum P, Reynolds MR, Ho KK, et al. Impact of a practice guideline for patients with atrial fibrillation on medical resource utilization and costs. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Sep 15. 92(6):677-81. [Medline].

  2. Fuster V, Rydn LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2006 Aug 15. 114(7):e257-354. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  3. [Guideline] Wann LS, Curtis AB, January CT, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (updating the 2006 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011 Jan 4. 123(1):104-23. [Medline].

  4. [Guideline] Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (Update on Dabigatran): A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011 Feb 14. [Medline].

  5. Singh BN, Singh SN, Reda DJ, Tang XC, Lopez B, Harris CL, et al. Amiodarone versus sotalol for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2005 May 5. 352(18):1861-72. [Medline].

  6. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Asinger RW, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines and Policy Conferences (Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) Developed in Collaboration With the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. Circulation. 2001 Oct 23. 104(17):2118-50. [Full Text].

  7. [Guideline] Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation). Eur Heart J. 2006 Aug. 27(16):1979-2030. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  8. Kannel WB, Wolf PA, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Prevalence, incidence, prognosis, and predisposing conditions for atrial fibrillation: population-based estimates. Am J Cardiol. 1998 Oct 16. 82(8A):2N-9N. [Medline].

  9. Fontes JD, Lyass A, Massaro JM, et al. Insulin Resistance and Atrial Fibrillation (from the Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2012 Jan 1. 109(1):87-90. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  10. Ferrari R, Bertini M, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, et al. An update on atrial fibrillation in 2014: From pathophysiology to treatment. Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 15. 203:22-9. [Medline].

  11. Nakao K, Seto S, Ueyama C, Matsuo K, Komiya N, Isomoto S, et al. Extended distribution of prolonged and fractionated right atrial electrograms predicts development of chronic atrial fibrillation in patients with idiopathic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2002 Oct. 13(10):996-1002. [Medline].

  12. Akyürek O, Sayin T, Dinçer I, Karaoguz R, Güldal M, Oral D. Lengthening of intraatrial conduction time in atrial fibrillation and its relation with early recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Jpn Heart J. 2001 Sep. 42(5):575-84. [Medline].

  13. Fox CS, Parise H, D'Agostino RB Sr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Vasan RS, Wang TJ, et al. Parental atrial fibrillation as a risk factor for atrial fibrillation in offspring. JAMA. 2004 Jun 16. 291(23):2851-5. [Medline].

  14. Lubitz SA, Yin X, Fontes JD, Magnani JW, Rienstra M, Pai M, et al. Association between familial atrial fibrillation and risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation. JAMA. 2010 Nov 24. 304(20):2263-9. [Medline].

  15. Xu DZ, Murakoshi N, Sairenchi T, et al. Anemia and reduced kidney function as risk factors for new onset of atrial fibrillation (from the Ibaraki Prefectural Health Study) [abstract]. Am J Cardiol. Nov 11, 2014. [Full Text].

  16. Harrison P. Anemia and CKD associated with new-onset AF. Heartwire. November 17, 2014. [Full Text].

  17. Lloyd-Jones DM, Wang TJ, Leip EP, Larson MG, Levy D, Vasan RS, et al. Lifetime risk for development of atrial fibrillation: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2004 Aug 31. 110(9):1042-6. [Medline].

  18. Abdel Latif A, Messinger-Rapport BJ. Should nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation be anticoagulated?. Cleve Clin J Med. 2004 Jan. 71(1):40-4. [Medline].

  19. Alonso A, Lopez FL, Matsushita K, et al. Chronic Kidney Disease Is Associated With the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Circulation. 2011 Jun 28. 123(25):2946-53. [Medline].

  20. Stöllberger C, Chnupa P, Abzieher C, Länger T, Finsterer J, Klem I, et al. Mortality and rate of stroke or embolism in atrial fibrillation during long-term follow-up in the embolism in left atrial thrombi (ELAT) study. Clin Cardiol. 2004 Jan. 27(1):40-6. [Medline].

  21. Rathore SS, Berger AK, Weinfurt KP, Schulman KA, Oetgen WJ, Gersh BJ, et al. Acute myocardial infarction complicated by atrial fibrillation in the elderly: prevalence and outcomes. Circulation. 2000 Mar 7. 101(9):969-74. [Medline].

  22. Avgil Tsadok M, Jackevicius CA, Rahme E, Humphries KH, Behlouli H, Pilote L. Sex differences in stroke risk among older patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation. JAMA. 2012 May 9. 307(18):1952-8. [Medline].

  23. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991 Aug. 22(8):983-8. [Medline].

  24. Wyse DG, Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, Domanski MJ, Rosenberg Y, Schron EB, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5. 347(23):1825-33. [Medline].

  25. Kotecha D, Chudasama R, Lane DA, Kirchhof P, Lip GY. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure due to reduced versus preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of death and adverse outcomes. Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 15. 203:660-6. [Medline].

  26. Hobbs FD, Roalfe AK, Lip GY, et al. Performance of stroke risk scores in older people with atrial fibrillation not taking warfarin: comparative cohort study from BAFTA trial. BMJ. 2011 Jun 23. 342:d3653. [Medline].

  27. Welles CC, Whooley MA, Na B, et al. The CHADS(2) score predicts ischemic stroke in the absence of atrial fibrillation among subjects with coronary heart disease: Data from the Heart and Soul Study. Am Heart J. 2011 Sep. 162(3):555-61. [Medline].

  28. Gerth A, Nabauer M, Oeff M, et al. Stroke events in patients with CHADS2 scores 0 and 1 in a contemporary population of patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the German AFNET registry [abstract 4381]. Presented at: European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2013; September 3, 2013; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Eur Heart J. 2013. 34 (suppl):808. [Full Text].

  29. Hughes S. CHA2DS2-VASc score best for stroke risk assessment in AF. Medscape Medical News. September 19, 2013. [Full Text].

  30. Marzona I, O'Donnell M, Teo K, Gao P, Anderson C, Bosch J, et al. Increased risk of cognitive and functional decline in patients with atrial fibrillation: results of the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND studies. CMAJ. 2012 Feb 27. [Medline].

  31. Jabre P, Roger VL, Murad MH, et al. Mortality associated with atrial fibrillation in patients with myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2011 Apr 19. 123(15):1587-93. [Medline].

  32. van Diepen S, Bakal JA, McAlister FA, Ezekowitz JA. Mortality and readmission of patients with heart failure, atrial fibrillation, or coronary artery disease undergoing noncardiac surgery: an analysis of 38 047 patients. Circulation. 2011 Jul 19. 124(3):289-96. [Medline].

  33. Michael JA, Stiell IG, Agarwal S, Mandavia DP. Cardioversion of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Apr. 33(4):379-87. [Medline].

  34. Page RL, Wilkinson WE, Clair WK, McCarthy EA, Pritchett EL. Asymptomatic arrhythmias in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 1994 Jan. 89(1):224-7. [Medline].

  35. van den Bos EJ, Constantinescu AA, van Domburg RT, Akin S, Jordaens LJ, Kofflard MJ. Minor elevations in troponin I are associated with mortality and adverse cardiac events in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2011 Mar. 32(5):611-7. [Medline].

  36. Klein AL, Grimm RA, Murray RD, Apperson-Hansen C, Asinger RW, Black IW, et al. Use of transesophageal echocardiography to guide cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2001 May 10. 344(19):1411-20. [Medline].

  37. Marrouche N. Delayed Enhancement - MRI determinant of successful Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation (DECAAF): analysis of post ablation scar and outcome. Presented at: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2013; September 1, 2013; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Full Text].

  38. O'Riordan M. DECAAF: Targeting MRI-identified fibrosis during ablation improves outcomes. Heartwire. September 1, 2013. [Full Text].

  39. Fang MC, Go AS, Chang Y, Borowsky LH, Pomernacki NK, Udaltsova N, et al. Thirty-Day Mortality After Ischemic Stroke and Intracranial Hemorrhage in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation On and Off Anticoagulants. Stroke. 2012 Apr 26. [Medline].

  40. Steinberg BA, Kim S, Piccini JP, Fonarow GC, Lopes RD, Thomas L, et al. Use and Associated Risks of Concomitant Aspirin Therapy with Oral Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from the ORBIT-AF Registry. Circulation. 2013 Jul 16. [Medline].

  41. Sjalander S, Sjalander A, Svensson PJ, Friberg L. Atrial fibrillation patients do not benefit from acetylsalicylic acid. Europace. 2014 May. 16(5):631-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  42. van Walraven C, Hart RG, Wells GA, Petersen P, Koudstaal PJ, Gullov AL. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with atrial fibrillation and a low risk for stroke while taking aspirin. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Apr 28. 163(8):936-43. [Medline].

  43. Olesen JB, Lip GY, Hansen ML, Hansen PR, Tolstrup JS, Lindhardsen J, et al. Validation of risk stratification schemes for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2011 Jan 31. 342:d124. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  44. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 28. [Medline].

  45. [Guideline] Busko M. New AF Guideline Includes Four Key Changes. Heartwire. March 28 2014. [Full Text].

  46. [Guideline] Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R, et al. 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2012 Nov. 33(21):2719-47. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  47. Hagens VE, Ranchor AV, Van Sonderen E, Bosker HA, Kamp O, Tijssen JG, et al. Effect of rate or rhythm control on quality of life in persistent atrial fibrillation. Results from the Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion (RACE) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jan 21. 43(2):241-7. [Medline].

  48. Busko M. Fatal Foxglove: Digoxin in Early AF Ups Mortality Risk. Medscape. Aug 11 2014. [Full Text].

  49. Turakhia MP, Santangeli P, Winkelmayer WC, et al. Increased Mortality Associated With Digoxin in Contemporary Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the TREAT-AF Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 19. 64(7):660-8. [Medline].

  50. McNamara RL, Tamariz LJ, Segal JB, Bass EB. Management of atrial fibrillation: review of the evidence for the role of pharmacologic therapy, electrical cardioversion, and echocardiography. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Dec 16. 139(12):1018-33. [Medline].

  51. Fang MC, Go AS, Chang Y, et al. A New Risk Scheme to Predict Warfarin-Associated Hemorrhage The ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19. 58(4):395-401. [Medline].

  52. FDA. FDA approves Xarelto to prevent stroke in people with common type of abnormal heart rhythm. US Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm278646.htm. Accessed: November 4, 2011.

  53. Bayer Schering Pharma AG. Xarelto: Summary of Product Characteristics. Available at http://www.xarelto.com/scripts/pages/en/information-on-xarelto/summary_of_product_characteristics/index.php. Accessed: 2008.

  54. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, Pan G, Singer DE, Hacke W, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 8. 365(10):883-91. [Medline].

  55. Wallentin L, Yusuf S, Ezekowitz MD, Alings M, Flather M, Franzosi MG, et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran compared with warfarin at different levels of international normalised ratio control for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: an analysis of the RE-LY trial. Lancet. 2010 Sep 18. 376(9745):975-83. [Medline].

  56. O’Riordan M. Consistent benefit of apixaban, even in patients at highest risk of bleeding: ARISTOTLE. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/772080. Accessed: October 15, 2012.

  57. Lopes RD, Al-Khatib SM, Wallentin L, et al. Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin according to patient risk of stroke and of bleeding in atrial fibrillation: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012 Oct 1. [Medline].

  58. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 15. 365(11):981-92. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  59. Connolly SJ, Eikelboom J, Joyner C, Diener HC, Hart R, Golitsyn S, et al. Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3. 364(9):806-17. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  60. O’Riordan M. FDA approves apixaban to prevent stroke in nonvalvular AF. Medscape Medical News. Dec 28, 2012. [Full Text].

  61. Lowes R. FDA Okays Kcentra to Reverse Anticoagulation, Stop Bleeding. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803321. Accessed: May 8, 2013.

  62. O'Shea SI, Arcasoy MO, Samsa G, Cummings SE, Thames EH, Surwit RS, et al. Direct-to-patient expert system and home INR monitoring improves control of oral anticoagulation. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2008 Aug. 26(1):14-21. [Medline].

  63. van Walraven C, Hart RG, Connolly S, Austin PC, Mant J, Hobbs FD, et al. Effect of age on stroke prevention therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: the atrial fibrillation investigators. Stroke. 2009 Apr. 40(4):1410-6. [Medline].

  64. Gage BF, Yan Y, Milligan PE, Waterman AD, Culverhouse R, Rich MW, et al. Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF). Am Heart J. 2006 Mar. 151(3):713-9. [Medline].

  65. Larsen TB, Lip GY. Warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation?. Lancet. 2013 Dec 3. [Medline].

  66. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, Halperin JL, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28. 369(22):2093-104. [Medline].

  67. Stiles S. New' Oral Anticoagulant Stroke-Protection Benefits in AF Cut Across Subgroups in Meta-Analysis. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815453. Accessed: December 17, 2013.

  68. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, Hoffman EB, Deenadayalu N, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2013 Dec 3. [Medline].

  69. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J, Oldgren J, Parekh A, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 17. 361(12):1139-51. [Medline].

  70. Uchino K, Hernandez AV. Dabigatran Association With Higher Risk of Acute Coronary Events: Meta-analysis of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jan 9. [Medline].

  71. Stiles S. Major Bleeds Less Daunting With Dabigatran Than Warfarin in Meta-Analysis. Medscape. Oct 4 2013. [Full Text].

  72. Majeed A, Hwang HG, Connolly SJ, Eikelboom JW, Ezekowitz MD, Wallentin L, et al. Management and outcomes of major bleeding during treatment with dabigatran or warfarin. Circulation. 2013 Sep 30. [Medline].

  73. Imazio M, Brucato A, Ferrazzi P, Rovere ME, Gandino A, Cemin R, et al. Colchicine Reduces Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the Colchicine for the Prevention of the Postpericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) Atrial Fibrillation Substudy. Circulation. 2011 Nov 22. 124(21):2290-2295. [Medline].

  74. O’Riordan M. Colchicine postablation reduces early AF recurrences. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/772079. Accessed: October 15, 2012.

  75. Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Kossyvakis C, et al. Colchicine for prevention of early atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation: a randomized controlled study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Sep 22. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  76. Hansen ML, Sørensen R, Clausen MT, Fog-Petersen ML, Raunsø J, Gadsbøll N, et al. Risk of bleeding with single, dual, or triple therapy with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Sep 13. 170(16):1433-41. [Medline].

  77. [Guideline] Hughes S. New AAN Guidelines on Stroke Prevention in AF. Medscape Medical News. Feb 24 2014. [Full Text].

  78. [Guideline] Culebras A, Messe SR, Chaturvedi S, et al. Summary of evidence-based guideline update: Prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2014 Feb 25. 82(8):716-24. [Medline].

  79. Kowey PR, Reiffel JA, Ellenbogen KA, Naccarelli GV, Pratt CM. Efficacy and safety of prescription omega-3 fatty acids for the prevention of recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010 Dec 1. 304(21):2363-72. [Medline].

  80. Liu T, Korantzopoulos P, Shehata M, Li G, Wang X, Kaul S. Prevention of atrial fibrillation with omega-3 fatty acids: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Heart. 2011 Jul. 97(13):1034-40. [Medline].

  81. Shi y, Li D, Tardif JC, Nattel S. Enalapril effects on atrial remodeling and atrial fibrillation in experimental congestive heart failure. Cardiovasc Res. 2002. 54:456-61.

  82. Moreno I, Caballero R, Gonzalez T et al. Effects of irbesartan on cloned potassium channels involved in human cardiac repolarization. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003. 304:862-873.

  83. Gerdts E, Wachtell K, Omvik, P et al. Left atrial size and risk of major cardiovascular events during antihypertensive treatment: Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension trial. Hypertension. 2007. 49:311-316.

  84. Yusuf S, Healey JS, Pogue J, Chrolavicius S, Flather M, Hart RG, et al. Irbesartan in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 10. 364(10):928-38. [Medline].

  85. Doyle JF, Ho KM. Benefits and risks of long-term amiodarone therapy for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009 Mar. 84(3):234-42. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  86. Roy D, Talajic M, Dorian P, Connolly S, Eisenberg MJ, Green M, et al. Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000 Mar 30. 342(13):913-20. [Medline].

  87. FDA drug safety communication: Multaq (dronedarone) and increased risk of death and serious cardiovascular adverse events. July 21, 2011. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm264059.htm. Accessed: July 26, 2011.

  88. Connolly SJ, Camm AJ, Halperin JL, et al. Dronedarone in High-Risk Permanent Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Nov 14. [Medline].

  89. Goodier R. Dofetilide cardioversion may increase proarrhythmia risk. Medscape Medical News. June 3, 2013. [Full Text].

  90. Brumberg G, Gera N, Pray C, Adelstein E, Barrington W, Bazaz R, et al. Frequency of Toxicity With Chemical Conversion of Atrial Fibrillation With Dofetilide. Am J Cardiol. 2013 May 22. [Medline].

  91. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, Peters RW, Obias-Manno D, Barker AH, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991 Mar 21. 324(12):781-8. [Medline].

  92. Hoyt H, Bhonsale A, Chilukuri K, Alhumaid F, Needleman M, Edwards D, et al. Complications arising from catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: Temporal trends and predictors. Heart Rhythm. 2011 Dec. 8(12):1869-74. [Medline].

  93. Boersma LV, Castella M, van Boven W, et al. Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation Versus Surgical Ablation Treatment (FAST): A 2-Center Randomized Clinical Trial. Circulation. 2012 Jan 3. 125(1):23-30. [Medline].

  94. Healey JS, Baranchuk A, Crystal E, Morillo CA, Garfinkle M, Yusuf S, et al. Prevention of atrial fibrillation with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jun 7. 45(11):1832-9. [Medline].

  95. Fauchier L, Pierre B, de Labriolle A, Grimard C, Zannad N, Babuty D. Antiarrhythmic effect of statin therapy and atrial fibrillation a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Feb 26. 51(8):828-35. [Medline].

  96. Vermes E, Tardif JC, Bourassa MG, Racine N, Levesque S, White M, et al. Enalapril decreases the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: insight from the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trials. Circulation. 2003 Jun 17. 107(23):2926-31. [Medline].

  97. Pedersen OD, Bagger H, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C. Trandolapril reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation after acute myocardial infarction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 1999 Jul 27. 100(4):376-80. [Medline].

  98. Alboni P, Botto GL, Baldi N, Luzi M, Russo V, Gianfranchi L, et al. Outpatient treatment of recent-onset atrial fibrillation with the "pill-in-the-pocket" approach. N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 2. 351(23):2384-91. [Medline].

  99. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, Crijns HJ, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. [ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation--excutive summary]. Rev Port Cardiol. 2007 Apr. 26(4):383-446. [Medline].

  100. [Guideline] Goldstein LB, Bushnell CD, Adams RJ, Appel LJ, Braun LT, Chaturvedi S, et al. Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2010 Dec 6. [Medline].

  101. Bradley D, Creswell LL, Hogue CW Jr, Epstein AE, Prystowsky EN, Daoud EG. Pharmacologic prophylaxis: American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for the prevention and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Chest. 2005 Aug. 128(2 Suppl):39S-47S. [Medline].

  102. Sezai A, Minami K, Nakai T, et al. Landiolol hydrochloride for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting: New evidence from the PASCAL trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Jun. 141(6):1478-87. [Medline].

  103. Anselme F, Saoudi N, Cribier A. Pacing in prevention of atrial fibrillation: the PIPAF studies. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2000 Jan. 4 Suppl 1:177-84. [Medline].

  104. Roux JF, Zado E, Callans DJ, Garcia F, Lin D, Marchlinski FE, et al. Antiarrhythmics After Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation (5A Study). Circulation. 2009 Sep 22. 120(12):1036-40. [Medline].

  105. Hussein AA, Wazni OM, Harb S, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with mechanical mitral valve prostheses safety, feasibility, electrophysiologic findings, and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Aug 2. 58(6):596-602. [Medline].

  106. Onorati F, Mariscalco G, Rubino AS, Serraino F, Santini F, Musazzi A, et al. Impact of lesion sets on mid-term results of surgical ablation procedure for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Feb 22. 57(8):931-40. [Medline].

  107. Haïssaguerre M, Shah DC, Jaïs P, Hocini M, Yamane T, Deisenhofer I, et al. Electrophysiological breakthroughs from the left atrium to the pulmonary veins. Circulation. 2000 Nov 14. 102(20):2463-5. [Medline].

  108. Jaïs P, Shah DC, Haïssaguerre M, Hocini M, Garrigue S, Clémenty J. Atrial fibrillation: role of arrhythmogenic foci. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2000 Jan. 4 Suppl 1:29-37. [Medline].

  109. Santangeli P, Di Biase L, Santoro F, et al. Pulmonary Vein Antrum Isolation in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Decade of Follow-Up. Nov 18 2013. [Full Text].

  110. Soga Y, Okabayashi H, Arai Y, et al. Up to 6-year follow-up after pulmonary vein isolation for persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation: Importance of sinus node function. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Jun. 141(6):1455-60. [Medline].

  111. O'Neill MD, Jaïs P, Hocini M, Sacher F, Klein GJ, Clémenty J, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2007 Sep 25. 116(13):1515-23. [Medline].

  112. Winkle RA, Mead RH, Engel G, Patrawala RA. Long-term results of atrial fibrillation ablation: The importance of all initial ablation failures undergoing a repeat ablation. Am Heart J. 2011 Jul. 162(1):193-200. [Medline].

  113. Stiles S. Repeat Ablation Wins Out Over Antiarrhythmic Agents for Recurrent Paroxysmal. Medscape. May 13 2013. [Full Text].

  114. Progression of Atrial Fibrillation After a Failed Initial Ablation Procedure in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Comparison of the Drug Therapy Versus Re-Ablation. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Full Text].

  115. Doshi RN, Daoud EG, Fellows C, Turk K, Duran A, Hamdan MH, et al. Left ventricular-based cardiac stimulation post AV nodal ablation evaluation (the PAVE study). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005 Nov. 16(11):1160-5. [Medline].

  116. Natale A, Zimerman L, Tomassoni G, Newby K, Leonelli F, Fanelli R, et al. AV node ablation and pacemaker implantation after withdrawal of effective rate-control medications for chronic atrial fibrillation: effect on quality of life and exercise performance. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999 Nov. 22(11):1634-9. [Medline].

  117. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, Doshi SK, Sievert H, Buchbinder M, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009 Aug 15. 374(9689):534-42. [Medline].

  118. Pappone C, Rosanio S, Oreto G, Tocchi M, Gugliotta F, Vicedomini G, et al. Circumferential radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary vein ostia: A new anatomic approach for curing atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2000 Nov 21. 102(21):2619-28. [Medline].

  119. Damiano RJ Jr, Lawrance CP, Saint LL, et al. Detection of atrial fibrillation after surgical ablation: conventional versus continuous monitoring. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jan. 101 (1):42-8. [Medline].

  120. Schillig J, Kaatz S, Hudson M, et al. Clinical and safety impact of an inpatient Pharmacist-Directed anticoagulation service. J Hosp Med. 2011 Jul. 6(6):322-8. [Medline].

  121. Connolly SJ, Pogue J, Hart RG, Hohnloser SH, Pfeffer M, Chrolavicius S, et al. Effect of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009 May 14. 360(20):2066-78. [Medline].

  122. Paré G, Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Anand SS, Connolly SJ, Hirsh J, et al. Effects of CYP2C19 genotype on outcomes of clopidogrel treatment. N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 28. 363(18):1704-14. [Medline].

  123. Stiell IG, Dickinson G, Butterfield NN, Clement CM, Perry JJ, Vaillancourt C, et al. Vernakalant Hydrochloride: A NovelAtrial-selective Agent for the Cardioversionof Recent-onset Atrial Fibrillation in the Emergency Department. Acad Emerg Med. Nov 2, 2010. 17(11):1175-1182.

  124. Schmidt M, Christiansen CF, Mehnert F, Rothman KJ, Sorensen HT. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and risk of atrial fibrillation or flutter: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2011 Jul 4. 343:d3450. [Medline].

  125. Everett BM, Cook NR, Conen D, Chasman DI, Ridker PM, Albert CM. Novel genetic markers improve measures of atrial fibrillation risk prediction. Eur Heart J. 2013 Feb 26. [Medline].

  126. Hughes S. CRYSTAL-AF: Monitor Detects AF in Cryptogenic Stroke. Medscape [serial online]. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820686. Accessed: February 24, 2014.

  127. Nagy-Baló E, Tint D, Clemens M, Beke I, Kovács KR, Csiba L, et al. Transcranial Measurement of Cerebral Microembolic Signals during Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Comparison of Two Ablation Techniques. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013 Apr 11. [Medline].

  128. Vassiliou VS, Flynn PD. Apixaban in atrial fibrillation: does predicted risk matter?. Lancet. 2012 Oct 1. [Medline].

  129. Verberk WJ, Omboni S, Kollias A, Stergiou GS. Screening for atrial fibrillation with automated blood pressure measurement: Research evidence and practice recommendations. Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 15. 203:465-73. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Ventricular rate varies from 130-168 beats per minute. Rhythm is irregularly irregular. P waves are not discernible.
Classification scheme for patients with atrial fibrillation.
Patient management for newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. Subtherapeutic INR: INR &lt; 2 for 3 consecutive weeks. Warfarin: INR target 2-3. TEE/cardioversion: low molecular weight heparin 1 mg/kg bid as a bridge with initiation of warfarin INR 2-3.
Antiarrhythmic drug algorithm for the medical management of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation.
The image on the right is a reconstructed 3-dimensional image of the left atrium in a patient undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation. The figure on the left was created with a mapping catheter using Endocardial Solutions mapping technology. It represents the endocardial shell of the left atrium and is used as the template during left atrial ablation procedures.
Table 1. Risk Factors for Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Risk Factors Relative Risk
Prior stroke or TIA 2.5
History of hypertension 1.6
Heart failure and/or reduced left ventricular function 1.4
Advanced age 1.4
Diabetes 1.7
Coronary artery disease 1.5
Table 2. Adjusted Stroke Rate in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation not Treated with Anticoagulation
CHADS2 Score Adjusted Stroke Rate (%/y)
0 1.9
1 2.8
2 4.0
3 5.9
4 8.5
5 12.5
6 18.2
Table 3. Recommendations for Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Risk Category Recommended Therapy
No risk factors Aspirin 81-325 mg daily
One moderate-risk factor Aspirin 81-325 mg daily or warfarin (INR 2-3)
Any high-risk factor or more than 1 moderate-risk factor Warfarin (INR 2-3)
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.