Rate Control Management of Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Response in the Emergency Department

There exists limited evidence on managing atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department. We sought to better understand the burden of disease in patients with AF for whom rhythm control was not successful or not attempted and identify opportunities for improved care.

We conducted a health records review of consecutive visits of patients with AF at 2 academic emergency departments. We included patients ≥ 18 years with AF, heart rate ≥ 100 beats per minute (bpm), and who were not successfully cardioverted or not attempted cardioversion. Outcomes were: (1) incidence given rate control, (2) management practices, (3) adverse events, (4) compliance with guidelines, and (5) outcomes. We performed descriptive statistics.

We included 665 visits, with mean age ± standard deviation 77.4 ± 12.9, female 51.6%, mean ± standard deviation heart rate 121.6 ± 17.4 bpm, AF status (permanent 53.4%; paroxysmal 29.5%; persistent 17.1%), admitted 61.4%. Of all cases, 147 (22.1%) had primary AF and 518 (77.9%) had a rapid rate secondary to a medical cause (heart failure 12.8%; pneumonia 11.7%; sepsis 8.4%). In 117 with primary AF given rate control, 59.0% had a final rate ≤ 100 bpm and 7.7% suffered adverse events. Suboptimal use of rate control occurred in 47.0% (agent 2.6%; route 27.4%; dosage 9.4%; timing 7.7%). At discharge, 11.5% with CHADS-65 risk factors were still not anticoagulated.

Most patients had a rapid rhythm secondary to a medical cause. There were a concerning number of adverse events related to suboptimal use of rate control. Better awareness of guidelines will ensure safer use of rate control.