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.

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.

Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The management of COVID-19 ARDS is debated. Although current evidence does not suggest an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the physiological response to prone positioning is not fully understood and it is unclear which patients benefit. We aimed to determine whether proning increases oxygenation and to evaluate responders. METHODS: This case series from a single, tertiary university hospital includes all mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and proning between 17 March 2020 and 19 May 2020. The primary measure was change in PaO2 :FiO2 . RESULTS: Forty-four patients, 32 males/12 females, were treated with proning for a total of 138 sessions, with median (range) two (1-8) sessions. Median (IQR) time for the five sessions was 14 (12-17) hours. In the first session, median (IQR) PaO2 :FiO2 increased from 104 (86-122) to 161 (127-207) mm Hg (P < .001). 36/44 patients (82%) improved in PaO2 :FiO2 , with a significant increase in PaO2 :FiO2 in the first three sessions. Median (IQR) FiO2 decreased from 0.7 (0.6-0.8) to 0.5 (0.35-0.6) (<0.001). A significant decrease occurred in the first three sessions. PaO2 , tidal volumes, PEEP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and norepinephrine infusion did not differ. Primarily, patients with PaO2 :FiO2 approximately < 120 mm Hg before treatment responded to proning. Age, sex, BMI, or SAPS 3 did not predict success in increasing PaO2 :FiO2 . CONCLUSION: Proning increased PaO2 :FiO2 , primarily in patients with PaO2 :FiO2 approximately < 120 mm Hg, with a consistency over three sessions. No characteristic was associated with non-responding, why proning may be considered in most patients. Further study is required to evaluate mortality.

Long-term mortality and cause of death for patients treated in Intensive Care Units due to poisoning.

BACKGROUND: Poisoned patients treated in the Intensive Care Unit are common, representing up to 6% of all ICU admissions. The in-hospital mortality is generally low but little is known about the long-term mortality in these patients. The aim of this study was to describe long-term mortality and cause of death in patients treated in the ICU for poisoning. METHOD: A national observational study based on three registers: the National Patient Register, the Swedish Intensive Care Register and the Cause of Death Register. All patients ≥19 years admitted to a Swedish Intensive Care Unit between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 with an ICD-10 code for poisoning were included. RESULTS: A total of 6730 patients were included. The one-year mortality was 4.5% (n = 303), with an overweight of men among the deceased (59.1%, P = 0.002). Patients aged 19-39 years had a 48 times increased one-year mortality compared to the age-matched general population and 94% of these patients died from suicide and/or accident, of which 70% were from a new poisoning. The two-year mortality was 7.2%. Women have a slightly higher overall long-term survival over two years (P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk of premature death is markedly increased in younger patients one and two years after an ICU hospitalisation for non-fatal poisoning compared to the general population. A large majority die due to a new poisoning incident despite a previously known recent severe poisoning. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Admission to ICU with poisoning, and particularly self-poisoning, may be associated with long-term mortaliity. In this study of 6730 patients admitted to a Swedish ICU for poisoning, the in-hospital mortality was low for that admission, but there is an increased risk of later mortality in young patients one and two years after hospital discharge.