Análisis del tratamiento para mantener el ritmo sinusal en pacientes con fibrilación auricular prescrito en los servicios de urgencias: subanálisis del estudio HERMES-AF / Emergency department prescription of sinus rhythm maintenance therapy for patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a secondary analysis of the HERMES-AF study

RESUMEN

Objetivo. El mantenimiento del ritmo sinusal (RS) con fármacos antiarrítmicos (FAA) y/o tratamiento del remodelado (TRM) es parte fundamental en la estrategia de control del ritmo en la fibrilación auricular (FA). Este estudio analiza estas estrategias y su adecuación en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH). Método. Análisis secundario del estudio multicéntrico observacional transversal HERMES-AF, desarrollado en 124 SUH representativos del sistema sanitario español en 2011. Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos con FA que revirtieron a RS y fueron dados de alta desde urgencias. Resultados. Se incluyeron 449 pacientes 204 (45,4%) ya realizaban tratamiento para mantenimiento del RS. De los 245 restantes se prescribió tratamiento en el SUH a 107 (43,7%) 41 con FAA, 19 TRM y en 47 ambas terapias. En 10 casos (11,8%) la selección del FAA no era acorde a las recomendaciones de las guías. La prescripción de FAA se asoció a FA previa [odds ratio (OR) 2,024, IC 95% 1,196-3,424, p = 0,009], frecuencia cardiaca > 110 lpm (OR 2,147, IC 95% 1,034-4,456, p = 0,040) y anticoagulación al alta (OR 1,862, IC 95% 1,094-3,170, p = 0,022). El TRM se asoció a frecuencia cardiaca > 110 lpm (OR 2,187, IC 95% 1,005-4,757, p = 0,018). En total, al alta del SUH 311 pacientes (69,2%) recibían tratamiento para mantenimiento del RS (87 con FAA, 117 con TRM y 107 con ambas terapias). Conclusiones. La prescripción de tratamiento para evitar las recurrencias de la FA es insuficiente en los SUH. Extender esta prescripción y mejorar la adecuación del tratamiento antiarrítmico son áreas de mejora de la estrategia de control del ritmo en los SUH.

ABSTRACT

Background and objective. The maintenance of sinus rhythm by means of antiarrhythmic drugs and/or upstream therapy to counter cardiac remodeling is fundamental to the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to analyze this approach and its appropriateness in the setting of hospital emergency departments. Methods. Secondary analysis of data from the multicenter observational cross-sectional HERMES-AF study carried out in 124 hospitals representative of the Spanish national health service in 2011. Included were consecutive patients with AF restored to sinus rhythm who were discharged home from emergency care. Results. A total of 449 patients were included; 204 (45.4%) were already on sinus rhythm maintenance therapy. Of the 245 remaining patients, 107 (43.67%) were prescribed maintenance treatment in the emergency department, as follows 41, an antiarrhythmic drug; 19, upstream therapy; and 49, both treatments. The selection of an antiarrhythmic drug did not follow guideline recommendations in 10 patients (11.8%). Antiarrhythmic drug prescription was associated with having had a prior episode of AF (odds ratio [OR], 2.024; 95% CI, 1.196-3.424; P = .009); a heart rate of more than 110 beats/min (OR, 2.147; 95% CI, 1.034-4.456, P = 0.40); and prescription of anticoagulation on discharge (OR, 1.862; 95% CI, 1.094-3.170; P = .022). Upstream therapy prescription was associated only with a heart rate over 110 beats/min (OR, 2.187; 95% CI, 1.005-4.757; P = .018). In total, 311 patients (69.23%) were discharged from the emergency department with sinus rhythm maintenance therapy 87 with an antiarrhythmic drug, 117 with an upstream therapy, and 107 with both. Conclusions. Treatment to prevent the recurrence of AF is underprescribed in emergency departments. Increasing such prescription and ensuring the appropriateness of antiarrhythmic therapy prescribed are points emergency departments can improve in the interest of better sinus rhythm maintenance.