Objectives: To evaluate the current management of new-onset atrial fibrillation and compare differences in practice regionally.
Design: Cross-sectional survey.
Setting: United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.
Subjects: Critical care attending physicians/consultants and fellows.
Interventions: None.
Measurements And Main Results: A total of 386 surveys were included in our analysis. Rate control was the preferred treatment approach for hemodynamically stable patients (69.1%), and amiodarone was the most used antiarrhythmic medication (70.9%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, a strategy of electrolyte supplementation and antiarrhythmic therapy was most common (54.7%). Physicians responding to the survey distributed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine were more likely to prescribe beta-blockers as a first-line antiarrhythmic medication (38.4%), use more transthoracic echocardiography than respondents from other regions (82.4%), and more likely to refer patients who survive their ICU stay for cardiology follow-up if they had new-onset atrial fibrillation (57.2%). The majority of survey respondents (83.0%) were interested in participating in future studies of atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients.
Conclusions: Significant variation exists in the management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients, as well as geographic variation. Further research is necessary to inform guidelines in this population and establish if differences in practice impact long-term outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10969509 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001069 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!