Prevention of atrial fibrillation with moderate doses of amiodarone in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery is safe and effective in patients with high risk for developing this arrhythmia. Prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting via atrial electromechanical interval and use of amiodarone prophylaxis. Influence of external temporary biatrial pacing on the prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass without extracorporeal circulation. Arrhythmias after coronary bypass surgery. Predictors, prevention, and long-term prognosis of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass graft operations. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of prophylactic metoprolol for reduction of hospital length of stay after heart surgery: the beta-Blocker Length Of Stay (BLOS) study. Atrial pacing for the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiovascular surgery. A comparison between oral antiarrhythmic drugs in the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: the pilot study of prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation (SPPAF), a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Effective prevention of atrial fibrillation by continuous atrial overdrive pacing after coronary artery bypass surgery.
To assess if prophylaxis with moderate doses of amiodarone in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery), reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with high risk for developing this arrhythmia.
                A randomized and prospective clinical study involving 68 patients who underwent elective cardiac surgery. Mean age was 64 years and 59% of participants were males. Patients with three or more risk factors for atrial fibrillation, according to the literature, were randomized into two groups to receive or not prophylaxis with amiodarone in the first postoperative day. The dose administered ranged from 600 mg/day to 900 mg/day, intravenously, on the first postoperative day, followed by 400 mg/day orally until hospital discharge or until completing seven days. The other patients, who presented two or fewer risk factors, were followed up until hospital discharge. All patients were evaluated by means of cardiac and/or electrocardiographic monitoring.
                In the group treated with amiodarone, 7% of patients presented atrial fibrillation, whereas in the control group 70% of patients developed arrhythmia. Among the non-randomized individuals (with two or fewer risk factors), only 24% presented atrial fibrillation.
                The prophylactic use of amiodarone was effective in the prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with three or more risk factors for this arrhythmia. This treatment can be useful to reduce stay at the Intensive Care Unit and, consequently, the complications originating from longer hospitalization. In our previous study, we defined a cut-off point of 120 ms for atrial electromechanical interval (AEMi) to determine the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence. Accordingly, the present study sought to investigate whether or not a prophylactic perioperative administration of amiodarone could reduce the incidence of AF in a high-risk group (AEMi >120 ms) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In this prospective, randomized study, 100 patients with AEMi >120 ms received either amiodarone (n=50) or placebo (n=50). The endpoints were AF occurrence after CABG and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay after CABG. The incidence of postoperative AF was significantly higher in the placebo group than that of the amiodarone group (88% of patients in control group vs. 16% of patients in amiodarone group, P<0.0001). The prophylactic therapy with amiodarone significantly reduced the ICU length of stay (2.28+/-1.00 vs. 3.60+/-0.90 days, P<0.0001) and hospital length of stay (5.64+/-2.35 vs. 7.78+/-1.46 days, P<0.0001). The incidence of postoperative AF among patients with high AEMi was significantly reduced by a prophylactic amiodarone treatment, resulting in shorter ICU and hospital stays. Atrial fibrillation is the most common complication after myocardial revascularization, and it increases morbidity/mortality.
                The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to test the hypothesis that temporary biatrial pacing is effective in reducing the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation after myocardial revascularization.
                Ninety-eight non-consecutive patients who had undergone off-pump myocardial revascularization received two temporary electrodes attached to the right and left atria, which were connected to either pair of atrial pacemaker electrodes, in addition to the leads implanted in the right ventricle. Two groups of patients were randomized (control: 49 patients with no biatrial pacing; therapeutic: 49 patients with biatrial pacing). The variables of interest were atrial fibrillation (present or absent) and length of hospital stay.
                The incidence of atrial fibrillation was 36.73% in the control group and 14.29% in the therapeutic group (p=0.0194). Length of hospital stay was 7.00 +/- 2.82 days for patients with no atrial fibrillation (n=73) and 9.20 +/- 2.87 days for patients with atrial fibrillation (n=25) (p=0.0001). Age was an important predictor of arrhythmia and ranged between 62.34 +/- 9.00 years in the group with no atrial fibrillation and 67.20 +/- 7.42 years in the group with atrial fibrillation (p=0.0170).
                Compared to controls, prophylactic temporary biatrial pacing is effective in preventing atrial fibrillation. Hospital stay was longer for patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation, and age was an important predictor for the development of arrhythmia. Ninety patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery were studied prospectively by bedside and subsequent ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring to investigate the incidence, possible causes, and prevention of atrial fibrillation. Patients with good left ventricular function were divided randomly into a control group or groups treated with digoxin or propranolol. In the control group the incidence of atrial fibrillation was 27% and of significant ventricular extrasystoles 3%. Propranolol reduced the incidence of atrial fibrillation (14.8%), whereas digoxin had no effect and increased the incidence of ventricular extrasystoles. Age, sex, severity of symptoms, cardiomegaly, heart failure, previous myocardial infarction, and number of grafts did not affect the result. The operative myocardial ischaemic time was related to the occurrence of atrial fibrillation. There was also a significant relation between atrial fibrillation and bundle branch block. Atrial fibrillation is common after coronary artery grafting; it may be due to diffuse myocardial ischaemia or hypothermic injury. The incidence may be reduced by beta blockade. Multiple trials have suggested the use of digoxin, digoxin and propranolol, or timolol to prevent atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting. No trial has evaluated the efficacy of digoxin verus propranolol. Furthermore, the predictors of postoperative atrial fibrillation and the long-term consequence of atrial fibrillation that reverts to sinus rhythm have not been established. One hundred fifty patients were randomized to receive no drug, propranolol (20 mg every 6 hours), or digoxin (0.5 mg followed by 0.25 mg daily). Twenty-seven patients were excluded from data analysis. In the remaining 123 patients, no preoperative parameter (age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, electrocardiographic p wave morphology, or preoperative digoxin or propranolol therapy), intraoperative parameter (bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, or number of vessels bypassed), or postoperative parameter (peak creatinine kinase, congestive heart failure, or pericarditis) by univariate or multivariate analysis predicted patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Sustained atrial fibrillation developed in 37.5% of control and 32.6% of digoxin-treated patients. Only 16.2% of propranolol-treated patients had sustained atrial fibrillation (p less than 0.03). There were no in-hospital complications in those patients with atrial fibrillation. After 26 +/- 7 months follow-up, those patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation had no increased incidence of angina, cerebral vascular accident, myocardial infarction, or sudden death. Therefore, in this select population, propranolol prophylaxis is effective but discretionary. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication of heart surgery. Previous studies have shown that there is an association between postoperative AF and prolongation of hospital length of stay. No previous trials have been primarily directed at demonstrating that the use of drugs that prevent AF would shorten length of stay and reduce the costs of postoperative care.
                A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metoprolol was performed in patients immediately after nonemergent heart surgery. Metoprolol was given orally at a dose of 100 mg per day after the patient's arrival in the intensive care unit until hospital discharge or 14 days, whichever was sooner. This dose was increased to 150 mg per day after the enrollment of 411 patients. The primary outcome measure of the study was hospital length of stay from admission to intensive care unit until hospital discharge. There were 1000 patients enrolled, evenly distributed to the metoprolol and placebo groups.
                There was a 20% reduction in the risk of AF developing with metoprolol, from 39% of patients to 31% of patients (P =.01). There was no effect of treatment on hospital length of stay, which was 152 +/- 61 hours for placebo and 155 +/- 90 hours for metoprolol (P = 0.79). The cost of postoperative care in the 2 treatment groups was similar.
                Prophylactic metoprolol reduces the risk of AF after heart surgery. It does not reduce hospital length of stay. Although it is cost effective for the reduction of AF, it did not reduce the overall cost of care. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of atrial pacing in the prevention of atrial fibrillation following cardiovascular surgery.
                Although pharmacologic therapy has been used to help prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation, it suffers from limited efficacy and adverse effects. In the nonoperative setting, novel pacing strategies have been shown to reduce recurrences of atrial fibrillation and prolong arrhythmia-free periods in patients with paroxysmal atrial arrhythmias.
                A total of 154 patients (115 men; mean age, 65 +/- 10 years; ejection fraction, 53 +/- 10%) undergoing cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass surgery, 88.3%; aortic valve replacement, 4.5%; coronary bypass + aortic valve replacement, 7.1%) had right and left atrial epicardial pacing electrodes placed at the time of surgery. Patients were randomized to either no pacing, right atrial (RAP), left atrial (LAP) or biatrial pacing (BAP) for 72 h after surgery. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents were administered concurrently to all patients following surgery.
                There was a reduction in the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation from 37.5% in patients receiving no postoperative pacing to 17% (p < 0.005) in patients assigned to one of the three pacing strategies. The length of hospital stay was reduced by 22% from 7.8 +/- 3.7 days to 6.1 +/- 2.3 days (p = 0.003) in patients assigned to postoperative atrial pacing. The incidence of atrial fibrillation was lower in each of the paced groups (RAP, 8%; LAP, 20%; BAP, 26%) compared with patients who did not receive postoperative pacing (37.5%).
                Postoperative atrial pacing, in conjunction with beta-blockade, significantly reduced both the incidence of atrial fibrillation and the length of hospital stay following cardiovascular surgery. Additional studies are needed to determine the most effective anatomic pacing site. Atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently occurs after cardiac surgical procedures, and beta-blockers, sotalol, and amiodarone may reduce the frequency of AF after open heart surgery. This pilot trial was designed to test whether each of the active oral drug regimens is superior to placebo for prevention of postoperative AF and whether there are differences in favor of 1 of the preventive strategies.
                We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in which patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the absence of heart failure and without significant left ventricular dysfunction (n = 253; average age, 65 +/- 11 years) received oral amiodarone plus metoprolol (n = 63), metoprolol alone (n = 62), sotalol (n = 63), or placebo (n = 65). Patients receiving combination therapy (amiodarone plus metoprolol) and those receiving sotalol had a significantly lower frequency of AF (30.2% and 31.7%; absolute difference, 23.6% and 22.1%; odds ratios [OR], 0.37 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.77, P <.01 vs placebo] and 0.40 [0.19 to 0.82, P =.01 vs placebo]) compared with patients receiving placebo (53.8%). Treatment with metoprolol was associated with a 13.5% absolute reduction of AF (P =.16; OR, 0.58 [0.29 to 1.17]. Treatment effects did not differ significantly between active drug groups. Adverse events including cerebrovascular accident, postoperative ventricular tachycardia, nausea, and dyspepsia, in hospital death, postoperative infections, and hypotension, were similar among the groups. Bradycardia necessitating dose reduction or drug withdrawal occurred in 3.1% (placebo), 3.2% (combined amiodarone and metoprolol; P =.65 vs placebo), 12.7% (sotalol; P <.05 vs placebo), and 16.1% (metoprolol; P <.05 vs placebo). Patients in the placebo group had a nonsignificantly longer length of hospital stay as compared with the active treatment groups (13.1 +/- 8.9 days vs 11.3 +/- 7; P =.10), with no significant difference between the active treatment groups.
                Oral active prophylaxis with either sotalol or amiodarone plus metoprolol may reduce the rate of AF after cardiac surgery in a population at high risk for postoperative AF. Treatment with metoprolol alone resulted in a trend to a lower risk for postoperative AF. The present study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a specific algorithm with continuous atrial dynamic overdrive pacing to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.
                Atrial fibrillation occurs in 30% to 40% of patients after cardiac surgery with a peak incidence on the second day. It still represents a challenge for postoperative prevention and treatment and may have medical and cost implications.
                Ninety-six consecutive patients undergoing CABG for severe coronary artery disease and in sinus rhythm without antiarrhythmic therapy on the second postoperative day were randomized to have or not 24 h of atrial pacing through temporary epicardial wires using a permanent dynamic overdrive algorithm. Holter ECGs recorded the same day in both groups were analyzed to detect AF occurrence.
                No difference was observed in baseline data between the two study groups, particularly for age, male gender, history of AF, ventricular function, severity of coronary artery disease, preoperative beta-adrenergic blocking agent therapy or P-wave duration. The incidence of AF was significantly lower (p = 0.036) in the paced group (10%) compared with control subjects (27%). Multivariate analysis showed AF incidence to increase with age (p = 0.051) but not in patients with pacing (p = 0.078). It decreased with a better left ventricular ejection fraction only in conjunction with atrial pacing (p = 0.018).
                We conclude that continuous atrial pacing with an algorithm for dynamic overdrive reduces significantly incidence of AF the second day after CABG surgery, particularly in patients with preserved left ventricular function.
Prophylaxis to prevent atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery with any of the studied pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions may be favored because of its reduction in the rate of atrial fibrillation, decrease in the length of stay and cost of hospital treatment and a possible decrease in the rate of stroke. However, this review is limited by the quality of the available data and heterogeneity between the included studies. Selection of appropriate interventions may depend on the individual patient situation and should take into consideration adverse effects and the cost associated with each approach.