Jasen L Gilge, Asim Ahmed, Bradley A Clark, Kathleen Morris, Zubin Yavar, Nicolas Beaudrie, Cameron Whitler, Mahera Husain, Mathew S Padanilam, Parin J Patel, Eric N Prystowsky, Ashwinn K Ravichandra
{"title":"Rate Control Versus Rhythm Control in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Atrial Fibrillation.","authors":"Jasen L Gilge, Asim Ahmed, Bradley A Clark, Kathleen Morris, Zubin Yavar, Nicolas Beaudrie, Cameron Whitler, Mahera Husain, Mathew S Padanilam, Parin J Patel, Eric N Prystowsky, Ashwinn K Ravichandra","doi":"10.4022/jafib.20200474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) with no defined guideline treatment strategy of rate versus rhythm control. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of rate versus rhythm control for AF on the outcomes of patients with LVAD at our institution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients who underwent LVAD implantation at St Vincent Hospital from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with AF were identified and divided into rate control or rhythm control groups. The primary outcome evaluated was a composite of death, heart failure admission, gastrointestinal bleed, ventricular tachycardia, cerebrovascular accident, hemolysis, and pump thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included the individual variables from the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 201 patients that underwent LVAD implantation, 81 had AF after implantation and were included with a median follow-up period of 384 days. The rate control group (n = 31; 38%) and the rhythm control group (n = 51; 62%) had no difference in composite outcomes (61% vs 59%, p = 0.83). When taken individually there was no difference in outcomes between the two groups. Thirteen patients underwent electrical cardioversion and successful conversion to normal sinus rhythm occurred in 71% of cases with a 60% recurrence rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no difference in primary outcome between rate and rhythm control groups. These data suggest that maintenance of sinus rhythm may not be necessary in all patients with LVAD.</p>","PeriodicalId":15072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of atrial fibrillation","volume":"13 6","pages":"20200474"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8691283/pdf/jafib-13-20200474.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of atrial fibrillation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4022/jafib.20200474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) with no defined guideline treatment strategy of rate versus rhythm control. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of rate versus rhythm control for AF on the outcomes of patients with LVAD at our institution.
Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent LVAD implantation at St Vincent Hospital from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with AF were identified and divided into rate control or rhythm control groups. The primary outcome evaluated was a composite of death, heart failure admission, gastrointestinal bleed, ventricular tachycardia, cerebrovascular accident, hemolysis, and pump thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included the individual variables from the primary outcome.
Results: Out of 201 patients that underwent LVAD implantation, 81 had AF after implantation and were included with a median follow-up period of 384 days. The rate control group (n = 31; 38%) and the rhythm control group (n = 51; 62%) had no difference in composite outcomes (61% vs 59%, p = 0.83). When taken individually there was no difference in outcomes between the two groups. Thirteen patients underwent electrical cardioversion and successful conversion to normal sinus rhythm occurred in 71% of cases with a 60% recurrence rate.
Conclusions: There was no difference in primary outcome between rate and rhythm control groups. These data suggest that maintenance of sinus rhythm may not be necessary in all patients with LVAD.
背景:房颤(AF)是左心室辅助装置(LVAD)患者的常见合并症,没有明确的指导治疗策略来控制心率与心律。本研究的目的是确定房颤的心率与心律控制对我院LVAD患者预后的影响。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月1日至2017年12月31日在圣文森特医院连续行LVAD植入的患者。确定AF患者并将其分为速率控制组或节律控制组。评估的主要结局是死亡、心力衰竭入院、胃肠道出血、室性心动过速、脑血管意外、溶血和泵血栓形成的综合结果。次要结局包括主要结局的个体变量。结果:201例LVAD植入患者中,81例植入后发生房颤,中位随访期384天。速率对照组(n = 31;38%)和节律对照组(n = 51;62%)的综合结果无差异(61% vs 59%, p = 0.83)。当单独考虑时,两组的结果没有差异。13例患者接受电复律治疗,71%的患者成功恢复正常窦性心律,复发率为60%。结论:心率对照组和节律对照组的主要转归无差异。这些数据表明,并非所有LVAD患者都需要维持窦性心律。