Curtis a Key Contributor to New Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines
Published
February 17, 2011
Anne
B. Curtis, MD, Charles and Mary Bauer Professor and Chair of
the Department of
Medicine, is a key contributor to new guidelines for physicians
that incorporate the latest research on the best way to treat
patients with atrial fibrillation.
Curtis is one of the world’s leading clinical cardiac
electrophysiologists and an expert in cardiac arrhythmias. Over the
years, she has played an important role in developing national
guidelines for treating atrial fibrillation.
The 2011
ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update on the Management of Patients with
Atrial Fibrillation (Updating the 2006 Guideline), issued by
the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart
Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, was originally
published online December 20, 2010, in the Journal of the American
College of Cardiology. The guidelines provide physicians with
recommendations based on the most current research findings so that
they can make the best treatment decisions for their patients.
How the Guidelines Will Affect Care
In the Q&A below, Curtis explains how the guidelines will
affect the way physicians treat patients with atrial
fibrillation.
What is atrial fibrillation?
Atrial fibrillation is a heart rhythm disorder that is
manifested as a rapid, irregular heart beat that can cause symptoms
such as fatigue, shortness of breath, exercise intolerance, and
even lead to heart failure in some patients. It is the most common
sustained type of irregular heartbeat observed in hospital
patients.
How is atrial fibrillation normally treated?
Atrial fibrillation is usually treated with medications to slow
the heart rate, anti-arrhythmic drugs to keep the rhythm normal and
anti-thrombotic drugs to prevent stroke. Anti-thrombotic drugs, or
drugs to prevent blood clots from forming, are used because the
fibrillating chambers of the heart can develop blood clots, which,
if they break off and go to the brain, can cause stroke. All these
efforts manage, but don’t cure, the arrhythmia. When
nonsurgical treatment fails, atrial fibrillation can be treated
with catheter ablation; however, ablation does not always prevent
recurrences or the need for additional procedures.
What was the purpose of the new guidelines?
The purpose of the 2011 American ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update on
the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation was to update
the guidelines issued in 2006, in light of new research
findings.
What is the most significant change in the new guidelines that patients should be aware of?
The most significant change in the new guidelines has to do with
catheter ablation, the minimally invasive surgical procedure used
to treat patients with atrial fibrillation when they have not
responded to medications. In catheter ablation, a catheter is
threaded into a patient’s blood vessels and into the heart,
where energy is applied to create scar tissue in defined areas to
prevent abnormal electrical impulses from causing atrial
fibrillation.
The new guidelines establish this procedure as a class 1
recommendation for selected patients who have failed medical
therapy. That is a stronger recommendation than it was in the 2006
guidelines, based on the fact that ablation is now considered a
standard, rather than an experimental, procedure. This change is
based on studies showing that ablation is effective in preventing
recurrences of atrial fibrillation better than continued drug
therapy.
What do you think was the most surprising change in the new guidelines?
The most surprising change to me is based on recent research
showing that strict control of the heart rate of patients with
atrial fibrillation doesn’t seem to result in better outcomes
than more lenient control.
This recommendation was based on a study called RACE II, Rate
Control Efficacy in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation, which found no
difference in outcomes between patients who had strict control and
those with more lenient control.
It should be recognized, however, that in long-term follow-up,
there was only a mean difference of nine beats per minute between
the two groups. I believe it is still a disadvantage for patients
to have very high heart rates in AF, say, over 120
beats-per-minute; but, conversely, aggressively treating patients
until the heart rate gets too slow, for example, much below 60-70
beats-per-minute, has disadvantages, too. One consequence could be
that a patient might end up needing a pacemaker to prevent slow
heart rates.
What other changes in the guidelines may affect how patients with AF are treated?
A new anti-arrhythmic agent called dronedarone is now being
recommended to prevent hospitalizations in patients with AF. In
2006, when the previous guidelines were issued, this drug
wasn’t available yet.
What is the purpose of the additional update, issued this week?
The purpose of this week’s update is to release a
new guideline recommendation for a recently released anticoagulant,
dabigatran. It is recommended as an alternative to warfarin for
prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation who do
not have serious valvular heart disease, an artificial heart valve
or serious kidney or liver disease.