Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in the ICU: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: The International AFIB-ICU Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study. SETTING: Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions. SUBJECTS: Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

Safety and Feasibility of AnaConDa™ to Deliver Inhaled Isoflurane for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Elective Postoperative Mechanical Ventilation: A Prospective, Open-label, Interventional Trial (INSTINCT I Study).

Aim: Sedation is essential during invasive mechanical ventilation, and conventionally intravenous analgesic and sedative drugs are used. Sedation with inhaled anesthetics using anesthesia conserving device (ACD) is an alternative. There is no data on the safety and ease of use of AnaConDa™ from India. Materials and methods: After IEC approval and informed consent, we used AnaConDa™-S for Isoflurane sedation in 50 hemodynamically stable (need for <0.5 µg/kg/min of Noradrenaline infusion), ASA I and II patients aged 18-80 years, undergoing elective mechanical ventilation for up to 24 hours after elective oncosurgeries. Patients with mental obtundation (GCS <14), or if pregnant, were excluded. The primary outcome was time spent between RASS scores of -3 and -4, while secondary outcomes were incidence of delirium, technical problems with AnaConDa™, and adverse systemic effects of isoflurane. Bolus doses of isoflurane 0.2-0.5 mL were given if the Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) score was not achieved. Results: Fifty patients received isoflurane infusion for a median of 720 (IQR 630-900) minutes, and all remained in the target sedation range. Median time to awakening [19 (IQR, 5-85) minutes], to follow simple verbal commands [20 (IQR 5-180) minutes], and extubation after stopping the infusion of isoflurane was quick [100 (10-470) minutes]. All patients remained hemodynamically stable. None of the patients had delirium. Conclusion: Target sedation levels were achieved with initial boluses of isoflurane using AnaConDa™-S. Isoflurane sedation delivery using AnaConDa™-S is safe and feasible. How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Bhosale SJ, Kalvit KR, Sahu TK, Mohanty R, Dhas MM, et al. Safety and Feasibility of AnaConDa™ to Deliver Inhaled Isoflurane for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Elective Postoperative Mechanical Ventilation: A Prospective, Open-label, Interventional Trial (INSTINCT I Study). Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(8):906-912.

Management of acute atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit: An international survey.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Different management strategies exist, but the evidence is limited and derived from non-ICU patients. This international survey of ICU doctors evaluated the preferred management of acute AF in ICU patients. METHOD: We conducted an international online survey of ICU doctors with 27 questions about the preferred management of acute AF in the ICU, including antiarrhythmic therapy in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients and use of anticoagulant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 910 respondents from 70 ICUs in 14 countries participated in the survey with 24%-100% of doctors from sites responding. Most ICUs (80%) did not have a local guideline for the management of acute AF. The preferred first-line strategy for the management of hemodynamically stable patients with acute AF was observation (95% of respondents), rhythm control (3%), or rate control (2%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, the preferred strategy was observation (48%), rhythm control (48%), or rate control (4%). Overall, preferred antiarrhythmic interventions included amiodarone, direct current cardioversion, beta-blockers other than sotalol, and magnesium in that order. A total of 67% preferred using anticoagulant therapy in ICU patients with AF, among whom 61% preferred therapeutic dose anticoagulants and 39% prophylactic dose anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: This international survey indicated considerable practice variation among ICU doctors in the clinical management of acute AF, including the overall management strategies and the use of antiarrhythmic interventions and anticoagulants.