Management of atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: A systematic review

• Published in: Academic emergency medicine Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 124 - 132
• Main Authors: Niforatos, Joshua D., Ehmann, Michael R., Balhara, Kamna S., Hinson, Jeremiah S., Ramcharran, Lukas, Lobner, Katie, Weygandt, P. Logan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2023
• Subjects: acute heart failure; Adult; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - therapeutic use; atrial fibrillation; Atrial Fibrillation - complications; Atrial Fibrillation - drug therapy; Atrial Flutter - complications; Atrial Flutter - drug therapy; Cardiac arrhythmia; Diltiazem - therapeutic use; emergency department; Emergency medical care; Heart failure; Heart Failure - complications; Heart Failure - drug therapy; Humans; intensive care unit; Metoprolol - therapeutic use; Observational studies; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; rapid ventricular response; Systematic review; therapeutic management; atrial fibrillation; intensive care unit; rapid ventricular response; acute heart failure; therapeutic management; emergency department; systematic review
• ISSN: 1069-6563; 1553-2712
• DOI: 10.1111/acem.14618

Objective The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response (AFRVR) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in the acute care setting. Methods This study was a systematic review of observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adult patients with AFRVR and concomitant ADHF in the emergency department (ED), intensive care unit, or step‐down unit. The primary effectiveness outcome was successful rate or rhythm control. Safety outcomes were adverse events, such as symptomatic hypotension and venous thromboembolism. Results A total of 6577 unique articles were identified. Five studies met inclusion criteria: one RCT in the inpatient setting and four retrospective studies, two in the ED and the other three in the inpatient setting. In the RCT of diltiazem versus placebo, 22 patients (100%) in the treatment group had a therapeutic response compared to 0/15 (0%) in the placebo group, with no significant safety differences between the two groups. For three of the observational studies, data were limited. One observation study showed no difference between metoprolol and diltiazem for successful rate control, but worsening heart failure symptoms occurred more frequently in those receiving diltiazem compared to metoprolol (19 patients [33%] vs. 10 patients [15%], p = 0.019). A single study included electrical cardioversion (one patient exposed with failure to convert to sinus rhythm) as nonpharmacological management. The overall risk of bias for included studies ranged from serious to critical. Missing data and heterogeneity of definitions for effectiveness and safety outcomes precluded the combination of results for quantitative meta‐analysis. Conclusions High‐level evidence to inform clinical decision making regarding effective and safe management of AFRVR in patients with ADHF in the acute care setting is lacking.