Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia experienced by critically ill patients. It has been associated with adverse short-and long-term outcomes, including an increased risk of thromboembolic events, heart failure, and death. Due to complex and multifactorial pathophysiology, a heterogenous patient population, and a lack of clinical tools for risk stratification validated in this population, AF in critical illness is challenging to predict, prevent, and manage. Personalized management strategies that consider patient factors such as underlying cardiac structure and function, potentially reversible arrhythmogenic triggers, and risk for complications of AF are needed. Furthermore, evaluation of the effects of these interventions on long-term outcomes is warranted. Critical illness survivors who have had AF represent a unique population who require systematic follow-up after discharge. However, the frequency, type, and intensity of follow-up is unknown. This state-of-the-art review aims to summarize the evidence, contextualize the current guidelines within the setting of critical illness, and highlight gaps in knowledge and research opportunities to further our understanding of this arrhythmia and improve patient outcomes.

• Keywords
• Atrial fibrillation, Critical illness,
• MeSH
• Atrial Fibrillation * therapy   physiopathology   complications   MeSH
• Risk Assessment MeSH
• Critical Illness * therapy   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Risk Factors MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Review MeSH

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia encountered in acute and critical illness and is associated with poor short and long-term outcomes. Given the consequences of developing AF, research into prevention, prediction and treatment of this arrhythmia in the critically ill are of great potential benefit, however, study of AF in critically ill patients faces unique challenges, leading to a sparse evidence base to guide management in this population. Major obstacles to the study of AF in acute and critical illness include absence of a common definition, challenges in designing studies that capture complex etiology and assess causality, lack of a clear outcome set, difficulites in recruitment in acute environments with respect to timing, consent, and workflow, and failure to embed studies into clinical care platforms and capitalize on emerging technologies. Collaborative effort by researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders should be undertaken to address these challenges, both through interdisciplinary cooperation for the optimization of research efficiency and advocacy to advance the understanding of this common and complex arrhythmia, resulting in improved patient care and outcomes. The Symposium on Atrial Fibrillation in Acute and Critical Care was convened to address some of these challenges and propose potential solutions.

• Keywords
• Atrial fibrillation, Critical Illness, Research,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

PURPOSE: Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared. METHODS: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence. RESULTS: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.

• Keywords
• Amiodarone, Atrial fibrillation, Atrial flutter, Cardioversion, Propafenone, Septic shock, Supraventricular arrhythmia,
• MeSH
• Amiodarone * therapeutic use   MeSH
• Anti-Arrhythmia Agents therapeutic use   MeSH
• Atrial Fibrillation * therapy   MeSH
• Ventricular Function, Left MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Propafenone therapeutic use   MeSH
• Prospective Studies MeSH
• Shock, Septic * complications   drug therapy   MeSH
• Stroke Volume MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
• Names of Substances
• Amiodarone * MeSH
• Anti-Arrhythmia Agents MeSH
• Propafenone MeSH