The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Comprehensive guidelines for the management of Atrial Fibrillation

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines program was developed to aid clinicians in the management of these complex patients, as well as to provide direction to policy makers and health care systems regarding related issues. The most recent comprehensive CCS AF guidelines update was published in 2010. Since then, periodic updates were published dealing with rapidly changing areas. However, since 2010 a large number of developments had accumulated in a wide range of areas, motivating the committee to complete a thorough guideline review. The 2020 iteration of the CCS AF guidelines represents a comprehensive renewal that integrates, updates, and replaces the past decade of guidelines, recommendations, and practical tips. It is intended to be used by practicing clinicians across all disciplines who care for patients with AF. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to evaluate recommendation strength and the quality of evidence. Areas of focus include: AF classification and definitions, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, screening and opportunistic AF detection, detection and management of modifiable risk factors, integrated approach to AF management, stroke prevention, arrhythmia management, sex differences, and AF in special populations. Extensive use is made of tables and figures to synthesize important material and present key concepts. This document should be an important aid for knowledge translation and a tool to help improve clinical management of this important and challenging arrhythmia.

Le programme de lignes directrices de la Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC) en matière de fibrillation auriculaire (FA) a été élaboré pour aider les cliniciens à prendre en charge ces patients complexes, ainsi que pour orienter les décideurs politiques et les systèmes de soins de santé sur des questions connexes. La dernière édition complète des lignes directrices de la SCC en matière de FA a été publiée en 2010. Depuis lors, des mises à jour périodiques ont été publiées, traitant de domaines en évolution rapide. Cependant, en 2020, un grand nombre de développements s'y étaient ajoutés, couvrant un large éventail de domaines, ce qui a motivé le comité à créer une refonte complète des lignes directrices. L'édition 2020 des lignes directrices de la SCC en matière de FA représente un renouvellement complet qui intègre, met à jour et remplace les lignes directrices, les recommandations et les conseils pratiques des dix dernières années. Elle est destinée à être utilisée par les cliniciens praticiens de toutes les disciplines qui s'occupent de patients souffrant de FA. L'approche GRADE (Gradation des Recommandations, de l'Appréciation, du Développement et des Évaluations) a été utilisée pour évaluer la pertinence des recommandations et la qualité des résultats. Les domaines d'intérêt incluent : la classification et les définitions de la FA, son épidémiologie, sa physiopathologie, l'évaluation clinique, le dépistage de la FA, la détection et la gestion des facteurs de risque modifiables, l'approche intégrée de la gestion de la FA, la prévention des accidents vasculaires cérébraux, la gestion de l'arythmie, les différences entre les sexes et la FA dans des populations particulières. Des tableaux et figures ont été largement utilisés pour synthétiser les éléments importants et présenter les concepts clés. Ce document devrait représenter une aide importante pour l'intégration des connaissances et un outil pour aider à améliorer la gestion clinique de cette arythmie importante et difficile à traiter.

Efficacy of amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation with and without left ventricular dysfunction: a pooled analysis of AFFIRM and AF-CHF trials.

INTRODUCTION: Despite amiodarone's established safety profile in the setting of heart failure, it is unknown whether its impact on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation is modulated by left ventricular function. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of 3,307 patients (age 68.0 ± 0.2 years; 31.1% female) enrolled in AFFIRM and AF-CHF trials was conducted to assess the effect of rhythm control with amiodarone on cardiovascular outcomes, according to left ventricular systolic function. In amiodarone-treated patients (N = 1,107), freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation was 84% and 45% at 1 and 5 years, respectively, with no differences according to left ventricular function (P = 0.8754). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of time spent in atrial fibrillation (15.0 ± 1.8%) did not vary according to ventricular function (P = 0.6094). Over 40.0 ± 0.3 months of follow-up, 1,963 (59.4%) patients required at least one hospitalization, 1,401 (42.6%) of whom had cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Adjusted all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalization rates were similar with amiodarone versus rate control in all patients and in subgroups with and without severe left ventricular dysfunction. A total of 729 (22.0%) patients died, 498 (15.1%) from cardiovascular causes. Adjusted all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were similar with amiodarone versus rate control overall and in subgroups with and without severe left ventricular dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone's efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm and reducing the burden of atrial fibrillation is similar in the presence or absence of severe left ventricular dysfunction. Rhythm control with amiodarone is associated with comparable hospitalization and mortality rates to rate control in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction.

Comparison of idraparinux with vitamin K antagonists for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists, the current standard treatment for prophylaxis against stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation, require regular monitoring and dose adjustment; an unmonitored, fixed-dose anticoagulant regimen would be preferable. The aim of this randomised, open-label non-inferiority trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of idraparinux with vitamin K antagonists. METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for thromboembolism were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous idraparinux (2.5 mg weekly) or adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonists (target of an international normalised ratio of 2-3). Assessment of outcome was done blinded to treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the cumulative incidence of all stroke and systemic embolism. The principal safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding. Analyses were done by intention to treat; the non-inferiority hazard ratio was set at 1.5. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00070655. FINDINGS: The trial was stopped after randomisation of 4576 patients (2283 to receive idraparinux, 2293 to receive vitamin K antagonists) and a mean follow-up period of 10.7 (SD 5.4) months because of excess clinically relevant bleeding with idraparinux (346 cases vs 226 cases; 19.7 vs 11.3 per 100 patient-years; p<0.0001). There were 21 instances of intracranial bleeding with idraparinux and nine with vitamin K antagonists (1.1 vs 0.4 per 100 patient-years; p=0.014); elderly patients and those with renal impairment were at greater risk of such complications. There were 18 cases of thromboembolism with idraparinux and 27 cases with vitamin K antagonists (0.9 vs 1.3 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.39-1.30; p=0.007), satisfying the non-inferiority criterion. There were 62 deaths with idraparinux and 61 with vitamin K anatagonists (3.2 vs 2.9 per 100 patient-years; p=0.49). INTERPRETATION: In patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for thromboembolism, long-term treatment with idraparinux was no worse than vitamin K antagonists in terms of efficacy, but caused significantly more bleeding.

Rate control versus rhythm control--decision making.

The present review examines the data and presents recommendations concerning the selection of rate-control or rhythm-control strategies, as opposed to the selection of specific therapies for rate control or rhythm control. There are several trials completed and others in progress that address issues surrounding the comparison of the two strategies, primarily using pharmacological therapies. The main results and some subanalyses of these trials are briefly reviewed. Gaps in the available data are identified. On the basis of the data, there is no clear advantage of one strategy over the other, although each seems to have potential advantages in different subsets of patients. Accordingly, the main recommendations are that either approach is acceptable, and that selection of a rhythm-management strategy should be individualized. This recommendation is based on a primarily pharmacological approach because that is currently the most common form of therapy used for rhythm management and because the evidence base is composed of comparisons of drug therapies. A number of clinical factors are identified to help individualize therapy and, included in these, is patient preference. It is also recommended that treating physicians be prepared to cross over from one strategy to another or change to nonpharmacological therapies when treatment goals are not achieved or adverse effects prevail.

Management of atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. It is common in the elderly and those with structural heart disease. Clinical classification can be helpful in treatment decisions and the most widely accepted classification scheme (first episode, recurrent paroxysmal, recurrent persistent, permanent) is found in the ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines. The pathophysiology of AF remains unclear at this time. It is unlikely that a single pathophysiology is operative in all or even a majority of cases. Therapies to be considered for AF include prevention of thromboembolism, rate control, and restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. These therapies and specific treatments for these purposes are discussed under these headings, including a section on the relative merits of the rate control and rhythm control strategies. Risk stratification is a fundamental part of the treatment for thromboembolism. When risk warrants treatment, prevention of thromboembolism is achieved either pharmacologically with aspirin, or with warfarin or new agents like ximelagatran, or by nonpharmacological approaches. Schema to assist in risk stratification and selection of appropriate antithrombotic therapy are provided. Recent trials comparing the strategy of rate control to the strategy of rhythm control failed to demonstrate that the rhythm control approach is superior to the rate control approach in patients and therapies studied so far. Rate control is an acceptable primary line of therapy in many patients, particularly the elderly with persistent AF who are not highly symptomatic. However, the risk and benefit of each treatment modality should be individualized according to the patient circumstances and comorbidity. Algorithms to help individualize which of the two strategies to use are provided. There are a number of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies available for rhythm management of AF. Pharmacologic cardioversion is an alternative to electrical cardioversion for recent onset AF but the latter is preferred for persistent AF. Current drug therapy to maintain sinus rhythm is neither highly effective nor completely safe. An algorithm to guide selection of the most appropriate antiarrhythmic drug for an individual patient is provided. Nonpharmacologic therapies for maintenance of sinus rhythm include surgery, radiofrequency ablation, devices, and hybrid (combination) therapies. Much remains to be learned about the role and application of such therapies. Pharmacologic heart rate control can be achieved for most patients with available agents and, when it cannot, there are effective nonpharmacologic therapies. A few specific situations in which AF occurs and for which there are some special considerations are described.

Life threatening ventricular arrhythmias with transient or correctable causes.

Traditionally, myocardial ischemia, electrolyte disorders, and proarrhythmic drug reactions have been considered transient and correctable causes of life threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Recent evidence suggests that patients whose ventricular tachyarrhythmias are attributed to these "causes" have a poor outcome. This overview reviews the available literature examining ischemia, electrolyte disorders and pro-arrhythmic drug reactions as potentially reversible causes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF). While all 3 are undoubtedly involved in the genesis of these tachyarrhythmias, and all 3 deserve particular clinical attention (outlined in the text), difficulties in the identification and/or reversal of their influences exist. Proarrhythmic drug reaction may be a reversible cause of VT/VF, hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia should be considered risk factors for VT/VF, and the role of ischemia is complex. Accordingly, physicians should use extreme caution in attributing life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias to these 3 conditions. Further research is required to identify "truly reversible" causes of VT/VF.

A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS: A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic. CONCLUSIONS: Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients.

Life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias due to transient or correctable causes: high risk for death in follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the prognosis of patients resuscitated from ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a transient or correctable cause suspected as the cause of the VT/VF. BACKGROUND: Patients resuscitated from VT/VF in whom a transient or correctable cause has been identified are thought to be at low risk for recurrence and often receive no primary treatment for their arrhythmias. METHODS: In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, patients with a potentially transient or correctable cause of VT/VF were not eligible for randomization. The mortality of these patients was compared with the mortality of patients with a known high risk of recurrence of VT/VF in the AVID registry. RESULTS: Compared with patients having high risk VT/VF, those with a transient or correctable cause for their presenting VT/VF were younger and had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction. These patients were more often treated with revascularization as the primary therapy, more commonly received a beta-blocker, less often required therapy for congestive heart failure and less commonly received either an antiarrhythmic drug or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Nevertheless, subsequent mortality of patients with a transient or correctable cause of VT/VF was no different or perhaps even worse than that of the primary VT/VF population. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified with a transient or correctable cause for their VT/VF remain at high risk for death. Further research is needed to define truly reversible causes of VT/VF. Meanwhile, these patients may require more aggressive evaluation, treatment and follow-up than is currently practiced.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT): drug testing and as-treated analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Using data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), we examined the factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy and their impact on outcomes. BACKGROUND: The MUSTT examined the use of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) to guide antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with coronary arteriosclerosis, left ventricular dysfunction and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Trial outcomes may reflect factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy. METHODS: We compared subgroups of patients with inducible sustained VT randomized to PVS-guided antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 351), in particular those receiving PVS-guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n = 142) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy (controls, n = 353). RESULTS: "Effective" antiarrhythmic drug therapy (i.e., the term "effective" was used to denote therapy that resulted in noninducible VT or hemodynamically stable induced VT) was found for 142 of the 351 patients (43%), most often at the first or second PVS session (125/142, 88%). Mortality among the 142 patients did not differ from that among control patients. Of these 142 patients, the PVS end point was noninducibility in 91 patients and stable VT in 51 patients. Mortality did not differ between these two groups either, but arrhythmia was numerically more frequent in the PVS-induced stable VT group. Mortality was greatest in the few patients receiving propafenone (unadjusted p = 0.07, adjusted p = 0.14 vs. controls), but mortality with all agents did not differ from that of controls, even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Even when presenting the results as favorably as possible, we found no benefit with PVS-guided drug therapy in patients with clinical unsustained VT who had inducible sustained VT. These findings are unaltered by using different end points for PVS or considering the response to individual drugs.

Atrial fibrillation: a risk factor for increased mortality--an AVID registry analysis.

Emerging evidence suggests that atrial fibrillation is not a benign arrhythmia. It is associated with increased risk of death. The magnitude of association is controversial and potential causes remain unknown. Patients in the registry of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial form the basis for this report. Baseline variables, in particular the presence or absence of a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, were examined in relation to survival. Multivariate Cox regression was used to adjust for differences in important baseline co-variables using 27 pre-selected variables. There were 3762 subjects who were followed for an average of 773+/-420 days; 1459 (39 %) qualified with ventricular fibrillation and 2303 (61 %) with ventricular tachycardia. A history of atrial fibrillation/flutter was present in 24.4 percent. There were many differences in baseline variables between those with and those without a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter. After adjustment for baseline differences, a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter remained a significant independent predictor of mortality, (relative risk=1.20; 95 % confidence intervals=1.03-1.40; p=0.020). Antiarrhythmic drug use, other than amiodarone or sotalol, was also a significant independent predictor of mortality (relative risk 1.34; 95 % confidence intervals 1.07-1.69, p=0.011. Atrial fibrillation/flutter is a significant independent risk factor for increased mortality in patients presenting with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This risk may have been overestimated in previous studies that could not adjust for the proarrhythmic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs other than amiodarone or sotalol.

Electrical storm presages nonsudden death: the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID) trial.

BACKGROUND: Electrical storm, multiple temporally related episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), is a frequent problem among recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, insufficient data exist regarding its prognostic significance. METHODS AND RESULTS: This analysis includes 457 patients who received an ICD in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial and who were followed for 31 +/- 13 months. Electrical storm was defined as > or = 3 separate episodes of VT/VF within 24 hours. Characteristics and survival of patients surviving electrical storm (n = 90), those with VT/VF unrelated to electrical storm (n = 184), and the remaining patients (n = 183) were compared. The 3 groups differed in terms of ejection fraction, index arrhythmia, revascularization status, and baseline medication use. Survival was evaluated using time-dependent Cox modeling. Electrical storm occurred 9.2 +/- 11.5 months after ICD implantation, and most episodes (86%) were due to VT. Electrical storm was a significant risk factor for subsequent death, independent of ejection fraction and other prognostic variables (relative risk [RR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 4.2; P = 0.003), but VT/VF unrelated to electrical storm was not (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7; P = 0.9). The risk of death was greatest 3 months after electrical storm (RR, 5.4; 95% Cl, 2.4 to 12.3; P = 0.0001) and diminished beyond this time (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.6; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Electrical storm is an important, independent marker for subsequent death among ICD recipients, particularly in the first 3 months after its occurrence. However, the development of VT/VF unrelated to electrical storm does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of subsequent death.

Electrophysiologic and clinical effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with prior myocardial infarction, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and depressed left ventricular function. MUSTT Investigators. Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to reduce sudden cardiac death and all-cause mortality. They also may have direct antiarrhythmic properties. We retrospectively analyzed the data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), to determine the effects of ACE inhibitors on inducibility of sustained ventricular tachycardia and on sudden cardiac death and overall mortality in 2,087 patients with prior myocardial infarction, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and depressed left ventricular function. Results of electrophysiologic testing were compared by use of ACE inhibitors at baseline, and outcomes were compared between the 564 patients prescribed ACE inhibitors at discharge and the 1,523 patients who did not receive treatment. The inducibility of sustained ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiologic testing did not differ by baseline ACE inhibitor use (unadjusted p = 0.75). Patients discharged from hospital on ACE inhibitors had a lower ejection fraction, more extensive coronary artery disease, and fewer previous revascularizations at baseline. After adjustments for differences in baseline factors and initial hospitalization variables, there were no significant differences in total mortality (p = 0.47) or arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest (p = 0.51) with ACE inhibitor use at discharge over a median 43 months of follow-up.

Randomized crossover comparison of DDDR versus VDD pacing after atrioventricular junction ablation for prevention of atrial fibrillation. The atrial pacing peri-ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PA (3)) study investigators.

BACKGROUND: Some clinical data suggest that atrial-based pacing prevents paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). This study tested the hypothesis that DDDR pacing compared with VDD pacing prevents AF after atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to DDDR pacing (n=33) or to VDD pacing (n=34) after AV junction ablation and followed every 2 months for 6 months. Patients then crossed over to the alternate pacing mode and were followed for an additional 6 months. Primary analysis included the time to first recurrence of sustained AF (duration >5 minutes), total AF burden, and the development of permanent AF. The time to first episode of AF was similar in the DDDR group (0.37 days, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.3 days) and the VDD pacing group (0.5 days, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.7 days, P=NS). AF burden increased over time in both groups (P<0.01). At the 6-month follow-up, AF burden was 6.93 h/d (95% CI 4. 37 to 10.96 h/d) in the DDDR group and 6.30 h/d (95% CI 3.99 to 9.94 h/d) in the VDD group (P=NS). Twelve (35%) patients in the DDDR group and 11 (32%) patients in the VDD group had permanent AF within 6 months of ablation. Within 1 year of follow-up, 43% of patients had permanent AF. CONCLUSIONS: DDDR pacing compared with VDD pacing does not prevent paroxysmal AF over the long term in patients in the absence of antiarrhythmic drug therapy after total AV junction ablation. Many patients have permanent AF within the first year after ablation.