ObjectivesThe aim of this review is to summarise the latest evidence on efficacy and safety of treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critical illness.ParticipantsCritically ill adult patients who developed NOAF during admission.Primary and secondary outcomesPrimary outcomes were efficacy in achieving rate or rhythm control, as defined in each study. Secondary outcomes included mortality, stroke, bleeding and adverse events.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge on 11 March 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting treatment efficacy for NOAF in critically ill patients. Data were extracted, and quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsOf 1406 studies identified, 16 remained after full-text screening including two RCTs. Study quality was generally low due to a lack of randomisation, absence of blinding and small cohorts. Amiodarone was the most commonly studied agent (10 studies), followed by beta-blockers (8), calcium channel blockers (6) and magnesium (3). Rates of successful rhythm control using amiodarone varied from 30.0% to 95.2%, beta-blockers from 31.8% to 92.3%, calcium channel blockers from 30.0% to 87.1% and magnesium from 55.2% to 77.8%. Adverse effects of treatment were rarely reported (five studies).ConclusionThe reported efficacy of beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, magnesium and amiodarone for achieving rhythm control was highly varied. As there is currently significant variation in how NOAF is managed in critically ill patients, we recommend future research focuses on comparing the efficacy and safety of amiodarone, beta-blockers and magnesium. Further research is needed to inform the decision surrounding anticoagulant use in this patient group.

Background New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic scoping review to summarise comparative evidence to inform NOAF management for patients admitted to ICU. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials register, additional WHO ICTRP trial databases, and NIHR Clinical Trials Gateway in March 2019. We included studies evaluating treatment or prevention strategies for NOAF or acute anticoagulation in general medical, surgical or mixed adult ICUs. We extracted study details, population characteristics, intervention and comparator(s), methods addressing confounding, results, and recommendations for future research onto study-specific forms. Results Of 3,651 citations, 42 articles were eligible: 25 primary studies, 12 review articles and 5 surveys/opinion papers. Definitions of NOAF varied between NOAF lasting 30 s to NOAF lasting > 24 h. Only one comparative study investigated effects of anticoagulation. Evidence from small RCTs suggests calcium channel blockers (CCBs) result in slower rhythm control than beta blockers (1 study), and more cardiovascular instability than amiodarone (1 study). Evidence from 4 non-randomised studies suggests beta blocker and amiodarone therapy may be equivalent in respect to rhythm control. Beta blockers may be associated with improved survival compared to amiodarone, CCBs, and digoxin, though supporting evidence is subject to confounding. Currently, the limited evidence does not support therapeutic anticoagulation during ICU admission. Conclusions From the limited evidence available beta blockers or amiodarone may be superior to CCBs as first line therapy in undifferentiated patients in ICU. The little evidence available does not support therapeutic anticoagulation for NOAF whilst patients are critically ill. Consensus definitions for NOAF, rate and rhythm control are needed.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative inflammatory response may be implicated in adverse outcomes including neurocognitive dysfunction and cancer recurrence after oncological surgery. The immunomodulatory role of anesthetic agents has been demonstrated in vitro; however, its clinical relevance is unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare propofol and sevoflurane with respect to biomarkers of perioperative inflammation. The secondary aim was to correlate markers of inflammation with clinical measures of perioperative cognition. METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials examining perioperative inflammation after general anesthesia using propofol compared to sevoflurane. Inflammatory biomarkers investigated were interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, tissue necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and C-reactive protein (CRP). The secondary outcome was incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. Meta-analysis with metaregression was performed to determine the difference between propofol and sevoflurane. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included with 1611 participants. Studies varied by surgery type, duration, and participant age. There was an increase in the mean inflammatory biomarker levels following surgery, with meta-analysis revealing no difference in effect between propofol and sevoflurane. Heterogeneity between studies was high, with surgery type, duration, and patient age contributing to the variance across studies. Only 5 studies examined postoperative cognitive outcomes; thus, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Nonetheless, of these 5 studies, 4 reported a reduced incidence of cognitive decline associated with propofol use. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery induces an inflammatory response; however, the inflammatory response did not differ as a function of anesthetic technique. This absence of an effect suggests that patient and surgical variables may have a far more significant impact on the postoperative inflammatory responses than anesthetic technique. The majority of studies assessing perioperative cognition in older patients reported a benefit associated with the use of propofol; however, larger trials using homogenous outcomes are needed to demonstrate such an effect.