New-onset atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of mortality in medical intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been extensively studied in postoperative critically ill surgical patients, but little literature exists to describe the outcomes of patients in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of new-onset AF in patients admitted to a medical ICU and if new-onset AF was associated with adverse clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of all adult patients admitted to the medical ICU at an academic medical center for >24 hours between December 2008 and April 2010. Collected data included past medical history, incidence of new-onset AF, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, organ failure, length of stay in the ICU and hospital, and in-hospital and 60-day survival. RESULTS: A total of 741 patients were included. New-onset AF occurred in 53 patients (7.2%). In-hospital mortality was significantly greater for patients with new-onset AF (45% vs 16%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-4.54, P = 0.032), as was 60-day mortality (51% vs 23%; adjusted OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.01-3.91, P = 0.047). Patients with new-onset AF experienced greater ICU (6 ± 10.2 days vs 3 ± 3.6 days, P < 0.01) and hospital (15 ± 19 days vs 7 ± 9 days, P < 0.01) lengths of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Medical ICU patients who developed new-onset AF experienced a 2-fold increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality and death at 60 days. Further research investigating contributing factors to new-onset AF and potential treatments is warranted.

International Survey of Thrombolytic Use for Treatment of Cardiac Arrest Due to Massive Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVES: This survey sought to characterize the national prescribing patterns and barriers to the use of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of pulmonary embolism, with a specific focus on treatment during actual or imminent cardiac arrest. DESIGN: A 19-question international, cross-sectional survey on thrombolytic use in pulmonary embolism was developed, validated, and administered. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors predictive of utilization of thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism. SETTING: International survey study. SUBJECTS: Physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who were members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thrombolytic users were compared with nonusers. Respondents (n = 272) predominately were physicians (62.1%) or pharmacists (30.5%) practicing in an academic medical center (54.8%) or community teaching setting (24.6%). Thrombolytic users (n = 177; 66.8%) were compared with nonusers (n = 88; 33.2%) Thrombolytic users were more likely to work in pulmonary/critical care (80.2% thrombolytic use vs 59.8%; p < 0.01) and emergency medicine (6.8% vs 3.5%; p < 0.01). Users were more likely to have an institutional guideline or policy in place pertaining to the use of thrombolytics in cardiac arrest (27.8% vs 13.6%; p < 0.01) or have a pulmonary embolism response team (38.6% vs 19.3%; p < 0.01). Lack of evidence supporting use and the risk of adverse outcomes were barriers to thrombolytic use. Working in a pulmonary/critical care environment (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.24-4.52) and comfort level (odds ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.7-4.53) were predictive of thrombolytic use in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most survey respondents used thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to known or suspected pulmonary embolism. This survey study adds important data to the literature surrounding thrombolytics for pulmonary embolism as it describes thrombolytic user characteristic, barriers to use, and common prescribing practices internationally.