Antithrombotic therapy in atrial flutter: To anticoagulate or not, that is the question

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents an arrhythmia fraught with significant morbidity, mortality, and financial burden for the health care system. Less attention is given to atrial flutter (AFL), which may occur as a stand-alone arrhythmia or coexist with AF in the same patient. Moreover, it is known that AF frequently develops after AFL ablation. Despite different pathophysiologies of AF and AFL, current guidelines provide identical indications for anticoagulation therapy in both arrhythmias, given the lack of trials in patients with AFL. This study attempts at providing an up-to-date literature review on the thromboembolic risk profile in AFL, focusing on differences between AFL and AF. Echocardiographic studies showed that the presence of spontaneous echocardiographic contrast (SEC) and thrombus are much less prevalent in patients with AFL than in those with AF. Patients with AFL had overall better left atrial appendage (LAA) function and lower coagulation marker levels than did patients with AF. Observational studies showed a significantly lower risk of stroke in patients with AFL than in those with AF. One study found a significantly higher ischemic stroke incidence in the AFL cohort only at CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores from 5 to 9 than in patients without AF or AFL. These findings imply that the thromboembolic risk inherent in AFL seems lower than that in AF. This should be considered in the context of a high chance of permanent AFL termination after successful cavotricuspid isthmus ablation, in contrast to the chronic clinical nature of AF. Although thromboembolic risk exists in AFL, prospective studies are warranted to establish the true prothrombotic properties of AFL, allowing the reassessment of anticoagulant treatment strategy.