BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have both been shown to portend worse outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (MI); however, the benefit of a rhythm control strategy in patients with CKD post-MI is unclear. METHODS: We prospectively studied 985 patients with new-onset AF post-MI in the GUSTO-III trial, of whom 413 (42%) had CKD (creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min). A rhythm control strategy, defined as the use of an antiarrhythmic medication and/or electrical cardioversion, was used in 346 (35%) of patients. RESULTS: A rhythm control strategy was used in 34% of patients with CKD and 36% of patients with no CKD. At hospital discharge, sinus rhythm was present in 487 (76%) of patients treated with a rate control strategy, vs. 276 (80%) in those treated with rhythm control (p = 0.20). CKD was associated with a lower odds of sinus rhythm at discharge (unadjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.84, p < 0.001). However, in multivariable analyses, treatment with a rhythm control strategy was not associated with discharge rhythm (HR 1.068, 95% CI 0.69-1.66, p = 0.77), 30-day mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.12, p = 0.18) or mortality from day 30 to 1 year (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59-1.69, p = 0.99). CKD status did not significantly impact the relationship between rhythm control and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a rhythm or rate control strategy does not signifi cantly impact short-term or long-term mortality in patients with post-MI AF, regardless of kidney disease status. Future studies to investigate the optimal management of AF in CKD patients are needed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have both been shown to portend worse outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (MI); however, the benefit of a rhythm control strategy in patients with CKD post-MI is unclear. METHODS: We prospectively studied 985 patients with new-onset AF post-MI in the GUSTO-III trial, of whom 413 (42%) had CKD (creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min). A rhythm control strategy, defined as the use of an antiarrhythmic medication and/or electrical cardioversion, was used in 346 (35%) of patients. RESULTS: A rhythm control strategy was used in 34% of patients with CKD and 36% of patients with no CKD. At hospital discharge, sinus rhythm was present in 487 (76%) of patients treated with a rate control strategy, vs. 276 (80%) in those treated with rhythm control (p = 0.20). CKD was associated with a lower odds of sinus rhythm at discharge (unadjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.84, p < 0.001). However, in multivariable analyses, treatment with a rhythm control strategy was not associated with discharge rhythm (HR 1.068, 95% CI 0.69-1.66, p = 0.77), 30-day mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.12, p = 0.18) or mortality from day 30 to 1 year (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59-1.69, p = 0.99). CKD status did not significantly impact the relationship between rhythm control and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a rhythm or rate control strategy does not signifi cantly impact short-term or long-term mortality in patients with post-MI AF, regardless of kidney disease status. Future studies to investigate the optimal management of AF in CKD patients are needed.
Authors: Mintu P Turakhia; Peter J Blankestijn; Juan-Jesus Carrero; Catherine M Clase; Rajat Deo; Charles A Herzog; Scott E Kasner; Rod S Passman; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; Holger Reinecke; Gautam R Shroff; Wojciech Zareba; Michael Cheung; David C Wheeler; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Christoph Wanner Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Wern Yew Ding; Tatjana S Potpara; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Giuseppe Boriani; Francisco Marin; Laurent Fauchier; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 5.722