Atrial fibrillation rate control
|
Atrial Fibrillation Microchapters | |
|
Special Groups | |
|---|---|
|
Diagnosis | |
|
Treatment | |
|
Cardioversion | |
|
Anticoagulation | |
|
Surgery | |
|
Case Studies | |
|
Atrial fibrillation rate control On the Web | |
|
Directions to Hospitals Treating Atrial fibrillation rate control | |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Atrial fibrillation rate control | |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2]
Rate control
Rate control is achieved with medications that work by increasing the degree of block at the AV node, effectively decreasing the number of impulses that conduct to the ventricles. This can be accomplisheddone with:
- Beta blockers (preferably the "cardioselective" beta blockers such as metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol)
- Cardiac glycosides (i.e. digoxin)
- Calcium channel blockers (i.e. diltiazem or verapamil)
In addition to these agents, amiodarone has some AV node blocking effects (particularly when administered intravenously), and can be used in individuals when other agents are contraindicated or ineffective (particularly due to hypotension).
Rate control versus rhythm control
AF can cause disabling and annoying symptoms. Palpitations, angina, lassitude (weariness), and decreased exercise tolerance are related to rapid heart rate and inefficient cardiac output caused by AF. Furthermore, AF with a persistent rapid rate can cause a form of heart failure called tachycardia induced cardiomyopathy. This can significantly increase mortality and morbidity, which can be prevented by early and adequate treatment of the AF.
There are two ways to approach these symptoms: rate control and rhythm control. Rate control treatments seek to reduce the heart rate to normal, usually 60 to 100 beats per minute. Rhythm control seeks to restore the normal heart rhythm, called normal sinus rhythm. Studies suggest that rhythm control is mainly a concern in newly diagnosed AF, while rate control is more important in the chronic phase. Rate control with anticoagulation is as effective a treatment as rhythm control in long term mortality studies, the AFFIRM Trial.[1]
The AFFIRM study showed no difference in risk of stroke in patients who have converted to a normal rhythm with anti-arrhythmic treatment, compared to those who have only rate control.[1]
ACC / AHA Guidelines- Pharmacological Rate Control During Atrial Fibrillation (DO NOT EDIT) [2]
| “ |
Class I1. Measurement of the heart rate at rest and control of the rate using pharmacological agents (either a beta blocker or non dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, in most cases) are recommended for patients with persistent or permanent AF. (Level of Evidence: B) 2. Intravenous administration of digoxin or amiodarone is recommended to control the heart rate in patients with AF and heart failure who do not have an accessory pathway. (Level of Evidence: B) 3. In patients who experience symptoms related to AF during activity, the adequacy of heart rate control should be assessed during exercise, adjusting pharmacological treatment as necessary to keep the rate in the physiological range. (Level of Evidence: C) 4. Digoxin is effective following oral administration to control the heart rate at rest in patients with AF and is indicated for patients with heart failure, LV dysfunction, or for sedentary individuals. (Level of Evidence: C) Class IIa1. A combination of digoxin and either a beta blocker or non dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist is reasonable to control the heart rate both at rest and during exercise in patients with AF. The choice of medication should be individualized and the dose modulated to avoid bradycardia. (Level of Evidence: B) 2. It is reasonable to use ablation of the AV node or accessory pathway to control heart rate when pharmacological therapy is insufficient or associated with side effects. (Level of Evidence: B) 3. Intravenous amiodarone can be useful to control the heart rate in patients with AF when other measures are unsuccessful or contraindicated. (Level of Evidence: C) 4. When electrical cardioversion is not necessary in patients with AF and an accessory pathway, intravenous procainamide or ibutilide is a reasonable alternative. (Level of Evidence: C) Class IIb1. When the ventricular rate cannot be adequately controlled both at rest and during exercise in patients with AF using a [beta blocker]], non dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, or digoxin, alone or in combination, oral amiodarone may be administered to control the heart rate. (Level of Evidence: C) 2. Intravenous procainamide, disopyramide, ibutilide, or amiodarone may be considered for hemodynamically stable patients with AF involving conduction over an accessory pathway. (Level of Evidence: B) 3. When the rate cannot be controlled with pharmacological agents or tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy is suspected, catheter-directed ablation of the AV node may be considered in patients with AF to control the heart rate. (Level of Evidence: C) Class III1. Digitalis should not be used as the sole agent to control the rate of ventricular response in patients with paroxysmal AF. (Level of Evidence: B) 2. Catheter ablation of the AV node should not be attempted without a prior trial of medication to control the ventricular rate in patients with AF. (Level of Evidence: C) 3. In patients with decompensated HF and AF, intravenous administration of a non dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist may exacerbate hemodynamic compromise and is not recommended. (Level of Evidence: C) 4. Intravenous administration of digitalis glycosides or non dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists to patients with AF and a pre-excitation syndrome may paradoxically accelerate the ventricular response and is not recommended. (Level of Evidence: C) |
” |
See Also
Sources
- The ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [3]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Wyse DG, Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, Domanski MJ, Rosenberg Y, Schron EB, Kellen JC, Greene HL, Mickel MC, Dalquist JE, Corley SD (2002). "A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation". N Engl J Med. 347 (23): 1825–33. PMID 12466506
- ↑ Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NAM III, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM, Gregoratos G, Hammill SC, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, Newby LK, Page RL, Schoenfeld MH, Silka MJ, Stevenson LW, Sweeney MO. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices). Circulation. 2008; 117: 2820–2840. PMID 18483207
- ↑ Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS, Crijns HJ, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, Halperin JL, Le Heuzey JY, Kay GN, Lowe JE, Olsson SB, Prystowsky EN, Tamargo JL, Wann S. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation- Executive Summary: executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidlines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2006; 114: 700-752. PMID 16908781
de:Vorhofflimmern it:Fibrillazione atriale nl:Boezemfibrilleren no:Atrieflimmer fi:Eteisvärinä