Oral Anticoagulation Use in High-Risk Patients Is Improved by Elimination of False-Positive and Inactive Atrial Fibrillation Cases.

BACKGROUND: Multiple registries have reported that >40% of high-risk atrial fibrillation patients are not taking oral anticoagulants. The purpose of our study was to determine the presence or absence of active atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 y, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke [or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism], Vascular disease, Age 65-74 y, Sex category) risk factors to accurately identify high-risk atrial fibrillation (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) patients requiring oral anticoagulants and the magnitude of the anticoagulant treatment gap. METHODS: We retrospectively adjudicated 6514 patients with atrial fibrillation documented by at least one of: billing diagnosis, electronic medical record encounter diagnosis, electronic medical record problem list, or electrocardiogram interpretation. RESULTS: After review, 4555/6514 (69.9%) had active atrial fibrillation, while 1201 had no documented history of atrial fibrillation and 758 had a history of atrial fibrillation that was no longer active. After removing the 1201 patients without a confirmed atrial fibrillation diagnosis, oral anticoagulant use in high-risk patients increased to 71.1% (P < .0001 compared with 62.9% at baseline). Oral anticoagulant use increased to 79.7% when the 758 inactive atrial fibrillation patients were also eliminated from the analysis (P < .0001 compared with baseline). In the active high-risk atrial fibrillation group, there was no significant difference in the use of oral anticoagulants between men (80.7%) and women (78.8%) with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2, or in women with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3 (79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Current registries and health system health records with unadjudicated diagnoses over-report the number of high-risk atrial fibrillation patients not taking oral anticoagulants. Expert adjudication identifies a smaller treatment gap than previously described.

Ibutilide for the control of refractory ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation in patients with myocardial ischemia and hemodynamic instability.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) in patients with myocardial ischemia requiring hemodynamic support can be refractory to available antiarrhythmic agents and even to cardioversion and defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to report the effect of intravenous ibutilide in patients with a VT and/or VF storm in the presence of incomplete revascularization requiring hemodynamic support. METHODS AND RESULTS: Standard continuous telemetry and frequent 12-lead electrocardiograms were obtained to determine the effect of intravenous Ibutilide in these patients. We studied six consecutive patients (age 60 ± 12 years; five males) with incomplete revascularization and mechanical support (extracorporeal membrane of oxygenation = 2; left ventricular assist device = 4) with VT/VF refractory to lidocaine and amiodarone. Intravenous ibutilide was given as a last resort for management of their ventricular arrhythmias. Intravenous ibutilide (1-2 mg) allowed restoration of sinus rhythm in three patients with persistent VF that were refractory to multiple defibrillation shocks. When the 24-hour period before and after ibutilide administration was compared, this drug markedly reduced the number of required cardioversions/defibrillations in all patients from 20 ± 9 to 0.7 ± 0.8 shocks ( P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with myocardial ischemia requiring hemodynamic support, intravenous Ibutilide demonstrates a potent antiarrhythmic effect and can facilitate defibrillation in patients with refractory VF.