A randomized, controlled comparison of electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial flutter.

BACKGROUND: Acute atrial flutter has one-tenth the prevalence of acute atrial fibrillation in the emergency department (ED) but shares many management strategies. Our aim was to compare conversion from acute atrial flutter to sinus rhythm between pharmacological cardioversion followed by electrical cardioversion (Drug-Shock), and electrical cardioversion alone (Shock-Only). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled comparison of attempted pharmacological cardioversion with IV procainamide followed by electrical cardioversion if necessary, and placebo infusion followed by electrical cardioversion. We enrolled stable patients with a primary diagnosis of acute acute atrial flutter at 11 academic EDs. The primary outcome was conversion to normal sinus rhythm. FINDINGS: From July 2013 to October 2018, we enrolled 76 patients, and none were lost to follow-up. Comparing the Drug-Shock to the Shock-Only group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 33 (100%) versus 40 (93%) (absolute difference 7.0%; 95% CI - 0.6 to 14.6; P = 0.25). Median time to conversion from start of infusion in the Drug-Shock group was 24 min (IQR 21-82) but only 9 (27%) cases were converted with IV procainamide. Patients in both groups had similar outcomes at 14 days; there were no strokes or deaths. INTERPRETATION: This trial found that the Drug-Shock strategy is potentially superior but that either approach to immediate rhythm control in the ED for patients with acute acute atrial flutter is highly effective, rapid, and safe in restoring sinus rhythm and allowing patients to go home and return to normal activities. Unlike the case of atrial fibrillation, we found that IV procainamide alone was infrequently effective.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le flutter auriculaire aigu a un dixième de la prévalence de la fibrillation auriculaire aiguë aux services d'urgence (SU) mais partage de nombreuses stratégies de gestion. Notre objectif était de comparer la conversion du flutter auriculaire aigu en rythme sinusal entre la cardioversion pharmacologique suivie de la cardioversion électrique (Drug-Shock) et la cardioversion électrique seule (Shock-Only). MéTHODES: Nous avons effectué une comparaison randomisée, en aveugle et contrôlée par placebo d'une tentative de cardioversion pharmacologique avec le procaïnamide IV suivie d'une cardioversion électrique si nécessaire, et une perfusion de placebo suivie d'une cardioversion électrique. Nous avons inscrit des patients stables avec un diagnostic primaire de flutter auriculaire aigu aigu dans 11 services d'urgence universitaires. Le résultat principal était la conversion à un rythme sinusal normal. RéSULTATS: De juillet 2013 à octobre 2018, nous avons inscrit 76 patients qui ont tous poursuivi le suivi médical jusqu'au terme prévu. En comparant le groupe Drug-Shock au groupe Shock-Only, la conversion au rythme sinusal s'est produite dans 33 (100%) contre 40 (93%) (différence absolue 7,0%; IC à 95% − 0.6 à 14,6; P = 0,25). Le temps médian de conversion depuis le début de la perfusion dans le groupe Drug-Shock était de 24 min (IQR 21­82) mais seulement 9 (27%) cas ont converti avec le procaïnamide IV. Les patients des deux groupes ont eu des résultats similaires à 14 jours; il n'y a pas eu d'accident vasculaire cérébral ni de décès. INTERPRéTATION: Cet essai a révélé que la stratégie Drug-Shock s'est avérée potentiellement supérieure, mais quelle que soit l'approche du contrôle immédiat du rythme cardiaque aux urgences pour les patients atteints de flutter auriculaire aigu aigu, elles sont, tous les deux, très efficaces, rapides et sûres pour rétablir le rythme sinusal et permettre aux patients de rentrer chez eux et reprendre leurs activités normales. Contrairement au cas de la fibrillation auriculaire, nous avons constaté que le procaïnamide IV seul était rarement efficace.

Interdepartmental program to improve outcomes for acute heart failure patients seen in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Acute heart failure patients often have an uncertain or delayed follow-up after discharge from the ED. Our goal was to introduce rapid-access specialty clinics to ensure acute heart failure patients were seen within 7 days, in an effort to reduce admissions and improve follow-up care. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted at two campuses of a large tertiary care hospital. We enrolled acute heart failure patients who presented to the ED with shortness of breath and were later discharged. Following a 12-month before period, we introduced rapid-access acute heart failure clinics staffed by cardiology and internal medicine. We allowed for a 3-month implementation period and then observed outcomes over the subsequent 12-month after period. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality and actual access to specialty care. RESULTS: Patients in the before (N = 355) and after periods (N = 374) were similar for age and most characteristics. Segmented autoregression analysis demonstrated there was a pre-existing trend to fewer admissions. Attendance at a specialty clinic increased from 17.8 to 42.1% (P < 0.01) and the median days to the clinic decreased from 13 to 6 days (P < 0.01). 30-days mortality did not change. CONCLUSION: Implementation of rapid-access clinics for acute heart failure patients discharged from the ED did not lead to an overall decrease in hospital admissions. It did, however, lead to increased access to specialist care, reduced follow-up times, without an increase in return ED visits or mortality. Widespread use of this rapid-access approach to a specialist can improve care for acute heart failure patients discharged home from the ED.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Les patients atteints d'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë ont souvent un suivi incertain ou retardé après leur sortie de l'urgence. Notre objectif était de mettre en place des cliniques spécialisées à accès rapide pour veiller à ce que les patients de d'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë soient vus dans les sept jours, afin de réduire les admissions et d'améliorer les soins de suivi. MéTHODES: Cette étude de cohorte prospective a été menée sur deux campus d'un grand hôpital de soins tertiaires. Nous avons recruté des patients atteints de d'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë qui se sont présentés aux urgences avec un essoufflement et qui ont ensuite été renvoyés chez eux. Après une période antérieure de 12 mois, nous avons mis en place des cliniques de d'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë à accès rapide dotées de personnel en cardiologie et en médecine interne. Nous avons prévu une période de mise en œuvre de 3 mois et avons ensuite observé les résultats au cours des 12 mois suivants. Le résultat principal était l'admission à l'hôpital dans les 30 jours. Les résultats secondaires comprenaient la mortalité et l'accès réel aux soins spécialisés. RéSULTATS: Les patients des périodes avant (N = 355) et après (N = 374) étaient similaires pour l'âge et la plupart des caractéristiques. Une analyse d'autorégression segmentée a démontré qu'il y avait une tendance préexistante à moins d'admissions. La fréquentation d'une clinique spécialisée est passée de 17,8 % à 42,1 % (P < 0,01) et les jours médians à la clinique ont diminué de 13 à 6 jours (P < 0,01). La mortalité à 30 jours n'a pas changé. CONCLUSION: La mise en place de cliniques à accès rapide pour les patients d'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë sortant de l'urgence n'a pas entraîné une diminution globale des admissions à l'hôpital Elle a toutefois permis d'améliorer l'accès aux soins spécialisés et de réduire les délais de suivi, sans pour autant augmenter les visites de retour aux urgences ou la mortalité. L'utilisation généralisée de cette approche d'accès rapide à un spécialiste peut améliorer les soins pour les patients atteints de d'insuffisance cardiaque aiguë renvoyés chez eux par les services d'urgence.

Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common arrythmia treated in the emergency department. Our primary aim was to compare conversion to sinus rhythm between pharmacological cardioversion followed by electrical cardioversion (drug-shock), and electrical cardioversion alone (shock-only). Our secondary aim was to compare the effectiveness of two pad positions for electrical cardioversion. METHODS: We did a partial factorial trial of two protocols for patients with acute atrial fibrillation at 11 academic hospital emergency departments in Canada. We enrolled adult patients with acute atrial fibrillation. Protocol 1 was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled comparison of attempted pharmacological cardioversion with intravenous procainamide (15 mg/kg over 30 min) followed by electrical cardioversion if necessary (up to three shocks, each of ≥200 J), and placebo infusion followed by electrical cardioversion. For patients having electrical cardioversion, we used Protocol 2, a randomised, open-label, nested comparison of anteroposterior versus anterolateral pad positions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by study site) for Protocol 1 by on-site research personnel using an online electronic data capture system. Randomisation for Protocol 2 occurred 30 min after drug infusion for patients who had not converted and was stratified by site and Protocol 1 allocation. Patients and all research and emergency department staff were masked to treatment allocation for Protocol 1. The primary outcome was conversion to normal sinus rhythm for at least 30 min at any time after randomisation and up to a point immediately after three shocks. Protocol 1 was analysed by intention to treat and Protocol 2 excluded patients who did not receive electrical cardioversion. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891058. FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, we enrolled 396 patients, and none were lost to follow-up. In the drug-shock group (n=204), conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 196 (96%) patients and in the shock-only group (n=192), conversion occurred in 176 (92%) patients (absolute difference 4%; 95% CI 0-9; p=0·07). The proportion of patients discharged home was 97% (n=198) versus 95% (n=183; p=0·60). 106 (52%) patients in the drug-shock group converted after drug infusion only. No patients had serious adverse events in follow-up. The different pad positions in Protocol 2 (n=244), had similar conversions to sinus rhythm (119 [94%] of 127 in anterolateral group vs 108 [92%] of 117 in anteroposterior group; p=0·68). INTERPRETATION: Both the drug-shock and shock-only strategies were highly effective, rapid, and safe in restoring sinus rhythm for patients in the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation, avoiding the need for return to hospital. The drug infusion worked for about half of patients and avoided the resource intensive procedural sedation required for electrical cardioversion. We also found no significant difference between the anterolateral and anteroposterior pad positions for electrical cardioversion. Immediate rhythm control for patients in the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation leads to excellent outcomes. FUNDING: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Clinical validation of a risk scale for serious outcomes among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease managed in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The Ottawa chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Risk Scale (OCRS), which consists of 10 criteria, was previously derived to identify patients in the emergency department with COPD who were at high risk for short-term serious outcomes. We sought to validate, prospectively and explicitly, the OCRS when applied by physicians in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted this prospective cohort study involving patients in the emergency departments at 6 tertiary care hospitals and enrolled adults with acute exacerbation of COPD from May 2011 to December 2013. Physicians evaluated patients for the OCRS criteria, which were recorded on a data form along with the total risk score. We followed patients for 30 days and the primary outcome, short-term serious outcomes, was defined as any of death, admission to monitored unit, intubation, noninvasive ventilation, myocardial infarction (MI) or relapse with hospital admission. RESULTS: We enrolled 1415 patients with a mean age of 70.6 (SD 10.6) years and 50.2% were female. Short-term serious outcomes occurred in 135 (9.5%) cases. Incidence of short-term serious outcomes ranged from 4.6% for a total score of 0 to 100% for a score of 10. Compared with current practice, an OCRS score threshold of greater than 1 would increase sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes from 51.9% to 79.3% and increase admissions from 45.0% to 56.6%. A threshold of greater than 2 would improve sensitivity to 71.9% with 47.9% of patients being admitted. INTERPRETATION: In this clinical validation of a risk-stratification tool for COPD in the emergency department, we found that OCRS showed better sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes compared with current practice. This risk scale can now be used to help emergency department disposition decisions for patients with COPD, which should lead to a decrease in unnecessary admissions and in unsafe discharges.

Outcomes for Emergency Department Patients With Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Treated in Canadian Hospitals.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter are the most common arrhythmias managed in the emergency department (ED). We evaluate the management and 30-day outcomes for recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter patients in Canadian EDs, where cardioversion is commonly practiced. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 6 academic hospital EDs and enrolled patients who had atrial fibrillation and flutter onset within 48 hours. Patients were followed for 30 days by health records review and telephone. Adverse events included death, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, subsequent admission, or ED electrocardioversion. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,091 patients with mean age 63.9 years, atrial fibrillation 84.7%, atrial flutter 15.3%, hospital admission 9.0%, and converted to sinus rhythm 80.1%. Although 10.5% of recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter patients had adverse events within 30 days, there were no related deaths and 1 stroke (0.1%). Adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with adverse event were hours from onset (1.03/hour; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.05), history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.09; 95% CI 1.01 to 4.36), and pulmonary congestion on chest radiograph (7.37; 95% CI 2.40 to 22.64). Patients who left the ED in sinus rhythm were much less likely to experience an adverse event (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Although most recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter patients were treated aggressively in the ED, there were few 30-day serious outcomes. Physicians underprescribed oral anticoagulants. Potential risk factors for adverse events include longer duration from arrhythmia onset, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, pulmonary congestion on chest radiograph, and not being in sinus rhythm at discharge. An ED strategy of sinus rhythm restoration and discharge in most patients is effective and safe.