American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 53, Issue 4 , Pages 701-710, April 2009

Acute and Chronic Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Late-Stage CKD

  • Wilbert S. Aronow, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, Cardiology Division, New York Medical College, Macy Pavilion, Room 138, Valhalla, NY 10595

Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York

Article Outline

Index Words: Chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, anticoagulants

 

Back to Article Outline

Case Presentation 

A 76-year-old white woman with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) receiving hemodialysis for the past 3 months develops atrial fibrillation with a ventricular rate of 170 beats/min, precipitating left-sided heart failure and pulmonary congestion. Her blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg. Her medical history is notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus (hemoglobin A1c level of 6.8%) and transient cerebral ischemic attack 6 months prior. Her left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 35%, as assessed 2 months earlier. Her serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is 70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L). Medications include 5 mg glipizide and 40 mg simvastatin daily. How should her atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response be treated?

Back to Article Outline

Prevalence and Incidence of AF 

AF is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. The prevalence and incidence of AF are high, particularly with advancing age.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 In the Framingham Heart Study, the prevalence of chronic AF was 2% in persons aged 60 to 69 years, 5% in persons aged 70 to 79 years, and 9% in persons aged 80 to 89 years.1 Similarly, in 5,201 persons aged 65 years and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), the prevalence of AF was 5% in women and 6% in men,4 while in another study of 1,563 community-dwelling elderly individuals with mean age of 80 years, the prevalence of chronic AF was 9%.5 In the CHS, the incidence of AF was 19.2 per 1,000 person-years.6

AF may be paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent. Episodes of paroxysmal AF may last from a few seconds to several weeks. Notably, 68% of persons presenting with AF of less than 72 hours' duration spontaneously convert to sinus rhythm.7 Episodes of persistent AF last longer than 7 days but less than 1 year. AF in which cardioversion has failed or lasts longer than 1 year is usually termed permanent.

CKD is associated with an increased prevalence and incidence of AF. Across multiple observational studies, the prevalence of AF in individuals with CKD varies from 7% to 27% (Table 1).8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 The incidence of AF is also quite high; in the largest study of dialysis patients to date, Abbott et al report an incidence rate of AF of 13 per 1,000 person-years among 3,374 patients receiving either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.14 In all of these studies, patients with AF were older than patients with sinus rhythm.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Table 1. Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Late-stage CKD
StudyNMean AgeKidney Disease StatusPrevalence of Atrial Fibrillation
Abe et al87255On hemodialysis7%
Fabbian et al931663On hemodialysis23%
Vazquez et al1019060On hemodialysis14%
Genovesi et al1148867On hemodialysis27%
Das et al125370With stage 3 to 4 CKD19%
Atar et al1327549On hemodialysis11%

Abbreviation: CKD, chronic kidney disease.

Back to Article Outline

Risks Associated With AF 

In the general population, AF is clearly associated with worse outcomes. For example, in the Framingham Study population, a longitudinal cohort of community-dwelling adults from Framingham, Massachusetts, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 2.7 times higher in women and 2.0 times higher in men with chronic AF than in women and men with sinus rhythm.15 The Framingham Study also demonstrated that, after adjustment for preexisting cardiovascular conditions, the odds ratio for mortality in persons with AF was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.5-2.2) in women and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8) in men.16 Similarly, in a study of 1,359 elderly long-term care patients with known heart disease and mean age of 81 years, those individuals with chronic AF were at 2.2 times (95% CI, 1.8-2.8) increased risk of having new coronary events compared with patients with sinus rhythm after controlling for other prognostic variables.17 In the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS), the effect of AF on the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly increased 4.4 times (95% CI, 2.9-6.5) in women and 2.2 times (95% CI, 1.6-3.1) in men.18

Critically, AF is an independent risk factor for stroke, especially in older persons.1, 2 Research from the Framingham Study showed that the relative risk (RR) of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF compared with patients with sinus rhythm was increased 2.6 times in patients aged 60 to 69 years, increased 3.3 times in patients aged 70 to 79 years, and increased 4.5 times in patients aged 80 to 89 years.1 Similarly, in a study of 2,101 elders with mean age of 81 years residing in a long-term health care facility, chronic AF was an independent risk factor for thromboembolic stroke, with a RR of 3.3 (95% CI, 2.4-4.5).2 The incidence of thromboembolic stroke in this study was 38% and 72% in older persons with chronic AF versus 11% and 24% in older persons with sinus rhythm at 3 and 5 years, respectively.2 In a second study of 1,476 patients who had 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiograms, the incidence of thromboembolic stroke after 37 months of follow up was 43% among 201 patients with AF (RR, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.4-4.5] compared with sinus rhythm), 17% among 493 patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, and 18% among 782 patients with sinus rhythm.20 This risk may be greater in women than in men; for example, in the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation, women with AF had a 1.83 times (95% CI, 1.10-3.03) greater risk of stroke than men with AF.19

Back to Article Outline

Assessing Stroke Risk 

The CHADS2 score (Table 2) is a validated predictive instrument used to assess stroke risk in patients with AF in the general population; it gives 1 point for congestive heart failure,1 point for hypertension, 1 point for age greater than 75 years, 1 point for diabetes mellitus, and 2 points for previous stroke or transient ischemic attack.21 Table 3 shows the relationship between the CHADS2 score and the annual risk of stroke.21 Current recommendations suggest that individuals in the general population with a CHADS2 score of 0 are at lower risk of stroke and may be treated with aspirin only, while those with a score of 1 are at moderate risk of stroke and should receive either aspirin or warfarin, and those with a score of 2 or more are at highest risk of stroke and should receive warfarin. Impressively, after 31 months of follow up in a study of 521 patients with AF, those individuals with a CHADS2 score of 5 or 6 had a 52-fold increased risk of stroke as compared with individuals with a CHADS2 score of 0.22 The CHADS2 score has not been studied in the dialysis population.

Table 2. CHADS2 Score
VariableNumber of Points
Congestive heart failure1
Hypertension1
Age older than 75 years1
Diabetes mellitus1
Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack2

Source: Gage et al.21

Table 3. Relationship Between CHADS2 Score and Risk of Stroke Each Year
CHADS2 ScoreRisk of Stroke Per Year
01.9%
12.8%
24.0%
35.9%
48.5%
512.5%
618.2%

Source: Gage et al.21

Back to Article Outline

Risk Associated With AF in Kidney Disease 

Patients with kidney failure requiring dialysis have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality, including stroke.23, 24, 25, 26, 27 AF may contribute to this increased risk. For example, in the Genovesi study of 476 hemodialysis patients, the presence of AF was associated with a 65% increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.18-2.31]); interestingly, while the mortality risk was driven by cardiovascular death, AF was not associated with incident stroke.28 Similarly, in the Vazquez study10 of 190 hemodialysis patients, 26 patients had AF at baseline. Of these, 23% of patients with AF and 6% of patients with sinus rhythm on hemodialysis died during 1 year of follow up, while 35% of patients with AF and 4% of patients with sinus rhythm developed thromboembolic events. Unlike the findings in Genovesi et al, multivariable analysis showed that AF was the only independent predictor of thromboembolic events at 1 year (odds ratio, 8.03 [95% CI, 2.35-27.4]).10 Over a 50-month follow-up period, Vazquez et al later reported an 81% mortality rate among patients with AF at baseline versus 28.7% among those without AF (odds ratio, 2.1 [CI, 1.2-3]) in analyses adjusted for age and serum albumin.29 Of the 26 patients with AF, 11 (42.3%) had 14 thromboembolic episodes while thromboembolic events occurred in 9.7% of the patients with sinus rhythm at baseline (RR, 4.6 [95% CI, 2.4-8.6]) in unadjusted analyses.29 Vazquez et al subsequently reported on the 164 hemodialysis patients without AF at baseline, and described that, over a mean follow-up period of 47 months, 20 patients developed AF; those individuals with incident AF were at significantly increased risk of subsequent thromboembolic events (RR, 5.2 [95% CI, 2.1-12.4]).30

Back to Article Outline

Use of Warfarin in AF 

In the general population, numerous prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and prospective, nonrandomized observational data41, 42 have demonstrated that high-risk patients with nonvalvular AF treated with warfarin to maintain an international normalized ratio (INR) between 2.0 and 3.0 have a significant reduction in thromboembolic stroke with an acceptable risk of bleeding.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 This was nicely demonstrated in the Stroke Prevention and Atrial Fibrillation (SPAF) Study III, in which patients with AF, a mean age of 72 years, and considered at high risk of thromboembolic stroke, were randomized to warfarin with an INR target of 2 to 3 versus warfarin with an INR target of 1.2 to 1.5 plus 325 mg aspirin daily. Individuals randomized to the higher INR target had a significant decrease of 72% in ischemic stroke or systemic thromboembolism compared with patients randomized to treatment with 325 mg oral aspirin daily plus oral warfarin to achieve an INR between 1.2 and 1.5.33 In the general population, oral anticoagulant therapy has proven effective in preventing thromboembolic events both in patients with paroxysmal AF as well as in patients with chronic AF. For example, in ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation Study), warfarin was associated with significantly lower adjusted thromboembolic rates for both women (60% reduction) and men (40% reduction) with similar annual rates of major bleeding (1.0% and 1.1%, respectively).44 Critically, all of these randomized clinical trials have excluded patients with late-stage CKD.

There are several observational studies examining anticoagulation in populations with CKD. In 1 study of patients with AF and a high proportion of chronic kidney failure undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation, age (P < 0.01) and nonanticoagulation (P = 0.02) were independent predictors of death, acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization in patients with AF.45 However, there was a borderline significant finding that individuals with chronic renal failure (undefined by the authors) were less likely to be anticoagulated at discharge, making it difficult to draw any conclusions regarding patients with kidney failure from this article.45 In 1 observational study analyzing US Renal Data Service DMMS Wave 2 (Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Wave 2 Study) data, there were 123 individuals hospitalized for AF and 90 who died during the study period (mean follow up of 2.92 ± 1.14 years). Among these individuals, only use of warfarin and systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mm Hg were associated with increased survival.14

Many physicians consider CKD a condition that confers a high risk of bleeding complications in patients given warfarin for AF and are reluctant to prescribe warfarin for this indication.46 However, this viewpoint has been challenged.47, 48, 49 In 1 small study of hemodialysis patients with mean follow up of 20 months, hemorrhagic events occurred in 31% of 29 patients (7 with AF) receiving oral anticoagulants and in 14% of 211 patients not receiving oral anticoagulants; importantly, no patients receiving oral anticoagulants developed a fatal hemorrhage, an intracranial hemorrhage, or serious clinical sequelae.48 Notably, in a more recent systematic review of warfarin use in hemodialysis patients, Elliott et al noted major bleeding rates ranging from 0.1 to 0.54 events per patient-year of warfarin exposure and stressed that the true bleeding risk associated with the use of warfarin in hemodialysis patients remains unknown, given the reliance on small observational studies with potential confounding by comorbid conditions.50

Studies also need to be performed to investigate whether other clinical factors in dialysis patients would predispose to greater benefit associated with anticoagulation. These factors include the increased risk of pulmonary embolism observed in long-term dialysis patients,51 as well as therapy targeted at hemodialysis patients with detection of left atrial appendage thrombi by transesophageal echocardiography, a condition (noted in 33% of 215 patients on hemodialysis in 1 study52) that identifies a very high-risk group for thromboembolic stroke in the general population.

Quinn et al specifically examined the issue of anticoagulation for AF of hemodialysis patients in a cost-utility analysis. At a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that no therapy, aspirin, or warfarin was the most efficient therapy were 20%, 23%, and 58%, respectively.53 An editorial accompanying this article recommended that until more data are available, standard warfarin anticoagulation should be considered in hemodialysis patients with AF, adhering to screening and monitoring as in the general population.54

Because of the high prevalence of AF and its association with an increased incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with late-stage CKD, it is essential that prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials be performed in these patients to determine the efficacy of oral anticoagulant therapy in preventing thromboembolic events and the incidence and type of hemorrhagic events. Until these data are available, this author favors treating AF patients on hemodialysis with warfarin on an individual basis, taking into account both the thromboembolism risk as well as the hemorrhagic risk.

Back to Article Outline

Ventricular Rate Control 

Rate control may be accomplished either through rhythm control (with conversion back to sinus rhythm) or through use of medications that affect the rate of transmission across the atrioventricular (AV) node. Emergent rhythm control through direct-current (DC) cardioversion should be performed immediately in patients who have paroxysmal AF with a very fast ventricular rate associated with an acute myocardial infarction, chest pain caused by myocardial ischemia, hypotension, severe congestive heart failure, syncope, or pre-excitation syndromes.47, 55 In the acute setting, medications including intravenous β-blockers,47, 55 calcium channel blockers,47, 55 other anti-arrhythmic agents (specifically amiodarone), and cardiac glycosides (specifically digoxin) have all been used with varying results to reduce a very rapid ventricular rate associated with AF except in patients with pre-excitation syndromes. These medications are discussed below and advantages, disadvantages, and special considerations for medications in each of these classes are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Selected Agents Frequently Used for Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation
AgentMechanismAcuteChronicRemoval by DialysisComments
HDPD
β-Blockers⁎
Atenololβ1-selectiveNA50 mg orally, 1x/d75%53%
Active metabolites may accumulate in ESRD, predisposing to heart block

Consider dose reduction or increase in dosing interval in kidney failure

CarvedilolNonselective β1 antagonism with additional α1 antagonismNA6.25-25 mg orally, 2x/dNoneNone
Lipophilic

Hepatic metabolism

Metabolite, R-carvedilol, has prolonged half-life with reduced kidney function but minimal activity

Significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in 1 clinical trial

Esmololβ1-selective500 μg/kg IV over 1 min followed by 60 μg/kg/min IVNANoneNone
IV only

Marked prolongation in half life of primary metabolite (ASL-8123, very weakly active)

Metoprololβ1-selective2.5-5 mg IV bolus over 2 min; up to 3 doses25-100 mg orally, 2x/dHighUnknown
Hepatic metabolism via CYP2D6

Less active metabolite, α-hydroxymetoprolol, has prolonged half life in kidney failure

Calcium Channel Blockers†
Diltiazem 0.25 mg/kg IV over 2 min60-90 mg orally, 4x/dLowLow
Metabolized by the liver and excreted in the kidneys and bile; metabolites have partial activity

Consider dose reduction or increase in dosing interval in kidney failure

Likely better option than verapamil

Verapamil 0.075 mg/kg IV over 2 min80 mg orally, 3x/dLowYes
Extensive hepatic metabolism with 70% kidney excretion (3%-4% as unchanged drug)

Consider dose reduction or increase in dosing interval in kidney failure

Other Agents
AmiodaroneClass III anti-arrhythmic agent with additional non-selective α and β antagonism, as well as class I and class IV properties150 mg IV over 10 min followed by 0.5-1 mg/min IV200 mg daily following loading dosesNoneNone
Follow INR and digoxin levels after initiating due to interactions; reduce dose of warfarin

Thyroid toxicity; baseline thyroid function tests recommended

Lung toxicity; baseline pulmonary function tests recommended

DigoxinInhibition of the Na/K ATPase pump which acts to increase the intracellular Na-Ca exchange to increase intracellular Ca0.375-0.75 mg load (divided over several doses every 2-6 h) followed by 0.125-0.25 mg every 48-72 h0.0625-0.125 mg every 48-96 h0-5%0-5%
High risk of digoxin toxicity

Follow levels, with target levels below 1

Avoid dramatic K shifts (eg, avoid dialysate bath concentration of 1 mmol/L K) if possible

Note: Compiled from package inserts, the KDOQI Workgroup,57 and Fuster et al.47

Abbreviations: AV, atrioventricular; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; INR, international normalized ratio; IV, intravenous; NA, not applicable; NA/K ATPase, sodium/potassium transporting adenosine triphosphatase.

⁎β-blockers reduce ventricular rate by depressing AV node conduction. All β-blockers may reduce blood pressure, reduce contractility in the acute setting, and cause bronchospasm.

†Calcium channel blockers inhibit calcium ion from entering the “slow channels” during depolarization, slowing AV node conduction. All nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers may reduce blood pressure and reduce contractility leading to heart failure.

For long-term management, while there are multiple options, oral lipophilic β-blockers such as metoprolol, carvedilol, or propranolol are likely preferable as first-line agents to slow the ventricular rate in patients with AF.55, 56 In settings where β-blockers may be contraindicated, such as severe bronchospasm, oral diltiazem would be the preferred agent assuming that the LVEF is 40% or higher.55 Of note, several medications commonly used in the general population or even in later stages of CKD may be associated with greater risk of adverse effects, most notably heart block, in a dialysis population. This primarily reflects decreased clearance of the active drug or active metabolites, and examples include atenolol, verapamil, and digoxin.58 With atenolol and verapamil in particular, other drugs in the same class may have a better safety profile, although in select cases the prolonged half-life can be advantageous as it may allow for observed thrice-weekly therapy at dialysis as was done in 1 study of atenolol.59 Verapamil has been associated with third-degree atrioventricular block in dialysis patients.60 Digoxin, while commonly used, is ineffective in reducing a rapid ventricular rate in any condition associated with increased sympathetic tone and has an extremely narrow therapeutic window in dialysis patients, particularly given the rapid fluctuations in potassium balance induced by hemodialysis.58, 61 Given their negative inotropic effects, the nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (diltiazem and verapamil) should be avoided if the patient has a LVEF less than 40%.62, 63 Sotalol, an infrequently used medication for rate control in AF, is contraindicated in patients with severe kidney disease.58

Amiodarone is an effective drug for reducing a rapid ventricular rate in AF as well as for long-term rate control.47, 55, 64 The noncompetitive β-receptor inhibition and calcium channel blockade associated with amiodarone represent powerful AV nodal conduction depressants. However, the adverse side-effect profile of amiodarone may limit its routine use in the treatment of AF. This adverse effect profile was demonstrated in the CASCADE (Cardiac Arrest in Seattle: Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation) Study, where the incidence of pulmonary toxicity was 10% at 2 years in patients receiving amiodarone at a mean dose of 158 mg daily.65 The incidence of adverse effects from amiodarone may approach 90% after 5 years of therapy.66 If intravenous β-blockers and diltiazem are unable to be used in the acute or long-term treatment of AF with a very rapid ventricular rate, intravenous or oral amiodarone, respectively, could be considered (Table 4).

Back to Article Outline

Ventricular Rate Control Versus Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm 

DC cardioversion of AF has a higher success rate in converting AF to sinus rhythm and a lower incidence of cardiac adverse effects than anti-arrhythmic drug therapies.47, 55 On the basis of numerous studies,67, 68, 69, 70, 71 this author prefers ventricular rate control over maintenance of sinus rhythm facilitated with the use of available anti-arrhythmic agents. Evidence supporting this position comes from the AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management) Study, which randomized 4,060 patients (mean age 70 years and 39% women) with paroxysmal or chronic AF of less than 6 months' duration at high risk for stroke to either maintenance of AF with ventricular rate control or to an attempt to maintain sinus rhythm with anti-arrhythmic drugs following successful cardioversion.72 Patients in both arms of this study were treated with warfarin. All-cause mortality at 5 years was nonsignificantly increased 15% in the maintenance of sinus rhythm group compared with the ventricular rate control group (24% v 21%, P = 0.08).72 There was a non–statistically significant reduction in the rate of thromboembolic stroke in the ventricular rate control group (5.5% v 7.1%), and all-cause hospitalization was significantly lower in the ventricular rate control group (73% v 80%, P < 0.001).72 In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin was stopped or when the INR was subtherapeutic. Importantly, there was no significant difference in quality of life or functional status between the 2 treatment groups.72 In post hoc subgroup analyses of AFFIRM data, rhythm control did not improve mortality, hospitalization, or New York Heart Association class in patients with LVEF of 40% to 49%, 30% to 39%, or less than 30%.67

Back to Article Outline

Management of the Patient Presented 

The patient presented in the introductory case has AF with a very rapid ventricular rate that precipitated congestive heart failure with pulmonary congestion. This woman requires immediate direct current cardioversion to sinus rhythm; evidence extrapolated from the general population suggests that heparin should be administered at the time of cardioversion and oral warfarin therapy should be initiated.47 With improvement in ventricular filling that can be seen with rate control and restoration of sinus rhythm, pulmonary congestion may subside without emergent dialysis.73 In nondialysis patients in the setting of heart failure associated with an abnormal LVEF, evidence favors treatment with a lipophilic β-blocker such as metoprolol or carvedilol as well as with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor.73 Despite a lack of conclusive evidence, I would favor the long-term use of an ACE inhibitor (or an angiotensin receptor blocker) in this patient given the reduced ejection fraction if the blood pressure is sufficiently high to allow this therapy.

Should AF recur, the β-blocker may be effective in preventing an accompanying rapid ventricular rate. β-Blockers reduce mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and abnormal LVEF due to numerous mechanisms including antagonizing neurohormonal systems that cause myocyte apoptosis, myocyte necrosis, myocyte hypertrophy, extracellular matrix alterations, and β-receptor uncoupling. These mechanisms are discussed in detail elsewhere.74 Diltiazem and verapamil, both negative inotropes, should be avoided in this patient because the LVEF is abnormal, and these drugs will increase mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and an abnormal LVEF.62, 63 Digoxin should also be avoided due to a lack of efficacy for rate and rhythm control as well as a narrow therapeutic window in patients with end-stage renal disease.58 Because of its adverse effect profile,65, 66 long-term amiodarone use should be undertaken with caution in patients with AF and CKD. Additionally, amiodarone interacts with numerous drugs58: it may cause atrioventricular block in patients treated with β-blockers, it increases serum digoxin levels, it increases the risk of myopathy and rhabdomyplysis in patients treated with simvastatin or lovastatin, and it potentiates the effect of warfarin, increasing the risk of bleeding. If the β-blocker was ineffective in controlling a rapid ventricular rate in this patient, complete atrioventricular block produced by radiofrequency catheter ablation followed by permanent pacemaker implantation could be considered.75

Blood pressure goals remain poorly defined in hemodialysis patients, with current guidelines suggesting predialysis and postdialysis blood pressure goals of less than 140/90 mm Hg and less than 130/80 mm Hg, respectively, assuming that orthostatic changes can be avoided.57, 76 Again extrapolating from the general population, I would favor continuing the statin,77, 78, 79 although there currently is a lack of evidence for statin use for primary or secondary cardiovascular outcome prevention in dialysis patients.80

Based on a CHADS2 score of 6, this patient theoretically has a 18.2% predicted annual risk of thromboembolic stroke.21 On the basis of this information, again extrapolating from the general population, I favor treating her with oral warfarin to maintain her INR between 2.0 to 3.0. I would educate her on further dietary changes that will promote stable warfarin metabolism, and, given the inherent bleeding risk with warfarin, would encourage her to avoid other medications that may increase her bleeding risk, in particular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.58

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgements 

Support: None.

Financial Disclosure: The author reports that he has no conflicts of interest pertaining to this article.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991;22:983–988
  2. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Gutstein H. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and association of atrial fibrillation with prior and new thromboembolic stroke in older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:521–523
  3. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Gutstein H. Prevalence and incidence of cardiovascular disease in 1,160 older men and 2,464 older women in a long-term health care facility. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002;57:M45–M46
  4. Furberg CD, Psaty BM, Manolio TA, Gardin JM, Smith VE, Rautaharju PM. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in elderly subjects (the Cardiovascular Health Study). Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:236–241
  5. Mendelson G, Aronow WS. Underutilization of warfarin in older persons with chronic nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at high risk for developing stroke. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:1423–1424
  6. Psaty BM, Manolio TA, Kuller LH, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for atrial fibrillation in older adults. Circulation. 1997;96:2455–2461
  7. Danias PG, Caulfield TA, Weigner MJ, Silverman DI, Manning WJ. Likelihood of spontaneous conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:588–592
  8. Abe S, Yoshizawa M, Nakanishi N, et al. Electrocardiographic abnormalities in patients receiving hemodialysis. Am Heart J. 1996;131:1137–1144
  9. Fabbian F, Catalano C, Lambertini D, et al. Clinical characteristics associated to atrial fibrillation in chronic hemodialysis patients. Clin Nephrol. 2000;54:234–239
  10. Vazquez E, Sanchez-Perales C, Borrego F, et al. Influence of atrial fibrillation on the morbido-mortality of patients on hemodialysis. Am Heart J. 2000;140:886–890
  11. Genovesi S, Pogliani D, Faini A, et al. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and associated factors in a population of long-term hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46:897–902
  12. Das M, Aronow WS, McClung JA, Belkin RN. Increased prevalence of coronary artery disease, silent myocardial ischemia, complex ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular hypertrophy, mitral annular calcium, and aortic valve calcium in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Cardiol Rev. 2006;14:14–17
  13. Atar I, Konas D, Acikel S, et al. Frequency of atrial fibrillation and factors related to its development in dialysis patients. Int J Cardiol. 2006;106:47–51
  14. Abbott KC, Trespalacios FC, Taylor AJ, Agodoa LY. Atrial fibrillation in chronic dialysis patients in the United States: risk factors for hospitalization and mortality. BMC Nephrol. 2003;4:1
  15. Kannel WB, Abbott RD, Savage DD, McNamara PM. Epidemiologic features of chronic atrial fibrillation: The Framingham Study. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1018–1022
  16. Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, D'Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB, Levy D. Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of death (The Framingham Heart Study). Circulation. 1998;98:946–952
  17. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Mercando AD, Epstein S. Correlation of atrial fibrillation, paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, and sinus rhythm with incidences of new coronary events in 1,359 patients, mean age 81 years, with heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:182–184
  18. Friberg J, Scharling H, Gadsboll N, et al. Comparison of the impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of stroke and cardiovascular death in women versus men (the Copenhagen City Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:889–894
  19. Dagres N, Nieuwlaat R, Vardas PE, et al. Gender-related differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation in Europe (A report from the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:572–577
  20. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Mercando AD, Epstein S, Gutstein H. Correlation of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, and sinus rhythm with incidences of new thromboembolic stroke in 1,476 old-old patients. Aging Clin Exp Res. 1996;8:32–34
  21. Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, et al. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke (Results from the national registry of atrial fibrillation). JAMA. 2001;285:2864–2870
  22. Khumri TM, Idupulapati M, Rader VJ, Nayyar S, Stoner CN, Main ML. Clinical and echocardiographic markers of mortality risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1733–1736
  23. Herzog CA, Ma JZ, Collins AJ. Poor long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction among patients on long-term dialysis. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:799–805
  24. D'Elia JA, Weinrauch LA, Gleason RE, et al. Application of the ambulatory 24-hour electrocardiogram in the prediction of cardiac death in dialysis patients. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:2381–2385
  25. Jungers P, Massy ZA, Khoa TN, et al. Incidence and risk factors of atherosclerotic cardiovascular accidents in predialysis chronic renal failure patients: a prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997;12:2597–2602
  26. Parfrey PS, Foley RN. The clinical epidemiology of cardiac disease in chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:1608–1615
  27. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Mercando AD, Epstein S. Prevalence of coronary artery disease, complex ventricular arrhythmias, and silent myocardial ischemia and incidence of new coronary events in older persons with chronic renal insufficiency and with normal renal function. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:1142–1143
  28. Genovesi S, Vincenti A, Rossi E, et al. Atrial fibrillation and morbidity and mortality in a cohort of long-term hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51:255–262
  29. Vazquez E, Sanchez-Perales C, Lozano C, et al. Comparison of prognostic value of atrial fibrillation versus sinus rhythm in patients on long-term hemodialysis. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:868–871
  30. Vazquez-Ruiz de Castroviejoa E, Sanchez-Perales C, Lozano-Cabezas C, et al. Incidence of atrial fibrillation in hemodialysis patients (A prospective long-term follow-up study). Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006;59:779–784
  31. Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1505–1511
  32. Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Risk factors for stroke and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation (Analysis of pooled data from five randomized controlled trials). Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1449–1457
  33. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Adjusted-dose warfarin versus low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin for high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation III randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 1996;348:633–638
  34. European Atrial Fibrillation Trial (EAFT) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. Lancet. 1993;342:1255–1262
  35. Peterson P, Boysen G, Godtfredsen J, Andersen ED, Andersen B. Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation. Lancet. 1989;1:175–179
  36. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Preliminary report of the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:863–868
  37. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study: Final results. Circulation. 1991;84:527–539
  38. Connolly SJ, Laupacis A, Gent M, et al. Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation (CAFA) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:345–355
  39. Ezekowitz MD, Bridgers SL, James KE, et al. Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1406–1412
  40. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Warfarin versus aspirin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation II Study. Lancet. 1994;343:687–691
  41. Gullov AL, Koefoed BG, Petersen P, et al. Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (Second Copenhagen Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study). Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1513–1521
  42. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Kronzon I, Gutstein H. Incidence of new thromboembolic stroke in persons ≥62 years old with chronic atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin versus aspirin. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:366–368
  43. Aronow WS, Ahn C, Kronzon I, Gutstein H. Effect of warfarin versus aspirin on the incidence of new thromboembolic stroke in older persons with chronic atrial fibrillation and abnormal and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:1033–1035
  44. Fang MC, Singer DE, Chang Y, et al. Gender differences in the risk of ischemic stroke and peripheral embolism in atrial fibrillation (The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study). Circulation. 2005;112:1687–1691
  45. Ruiz-Nodar JM, Marin F, Hurtado JA, et al. Anticoagulant therapy use in 426 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:818–825
  46. Korantzopoulos P, Kokkoris S, Liu T, Protopsaltis I, Li G, Goudevenos JA. Atrial fibrillation in end-stage renal disease. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30:1391–1397
  47. Fuster V, Ryden LE, Asinger RW, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: Executive summary. Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:1231–1265
  48. Vazquez E, Sanchez-Perales C, Garcia-Cortes J, et al. Ought dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation be treated with oral anticoagulants?. Int J Cardiol. 2003;87:135–139
  49. Wright JR, Kalra PA. Ought dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation be treated with oral anticoagulants?. Int J Cardiol. 2003;87:139–141
  50. Elliott MJ, Zimmerman D, Holden RM. Warfarin anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients: A systematic review of bleeding rates. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;50:433–440
  51. Tveit DP, Hypolite IO, Hshieh P, et al. Chronic dialysis patients have high risk for pulmonary embolism. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39:1011–1017
  52. Nishimura M, Hashimoto T, Kobayashi H, et al. The high incidence of left atrial appendage thrombosis in patients on maintenance haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003;18:2339–2347
  53. Quinn RR, Naimark DMJ, Oliver MJ, et al. Should hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation undergo systemic anticoagulation? (A cost-utility analysis). Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;50:421–432
  54. Abbott KC, Neff RT, Bohen EM, Narayan R. Anticoagulation for chronic atrial fibrillation in hemodialysis patients: which fruit from the decision tree?. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;50:345–348
  55. Aronow WS, Sorbera C. Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias in the elderly. In:  Aronow WS,  Fleg JL,  Rich MW editor. Cardiovascular Disease in the Elderly. (ed 4). New York, NY: Informa Healthcare; 2008;p. 577–603
  56. Aronow WS. Might losartan reduce sudden cardiac death in diabetics with hypertension?. Lancet. 2003;362:591–592
  57. K/DOQI Workgroup. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease in Dialysis Patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45(suppl 3):S1–S153
  58. Frishman WH, Aronow WS, Cheng-Lai A. Cardiovascular drug therapy in the elderly. In:  Aronow WS,  Fleg JL,  Rich MW editor. Cardiovascular Disease in the Elderly. (ed 4). New York, NY: Informa Healthcare; 2008;p. 99–135
  59. Agarwal R. Supervised atenolol therapy in the management of hemodialysis hypertension. Kidney Int. 1999;55:1528–1535
  60. Letavernier E, Couzi L, Delmas Y, et al. Verapamil and mild hyperkalemia in hemodialysis patients: a potentially hazardous association. Hemodial Int. 2006;10:170–172
  61. Falk RH, Leavitt JI. Digoxin for atrial fibrillation: a drug whose time has gone?. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:573–575
  62. The Multicenter Diltiazem Postinfarction Trial Research Group. The effect of diltiazem on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:385–392
  63. Goldstein RE, Boccuzzi SJ, Cruess D, et al. Diltiazem increases late-onset congestive heart failure in postinfarction patients with early reduction in ejection fraction. Circulation. 1991;83:52–60
  64. Gold RL, Haffajee CI, Charos G, et al. Amiodarone for refractory atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1986;57:124–127
  65. Greene HL CASCADE Investigators. The CASCADE study: randomized antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest in Seattle. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:70F–74F
  66. Herre J, Sauve M, Malone P, Griffin JC, Helmy I, Langberg JJ. Long-term results of amiodarone therapy in patients with recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;13:442–449
  67. Freudenberger RS, Wilson AC, Kostis JB AFFIRM Investigators and Committees. Comparison of rate versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (from the AFFIRM study). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:247–252
  68. Van Gelder IC, Hagens VE, Bosker HA, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1834–1840
  69. Rienstra M, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Hagens VE, et al. Gender-related differences in rhythm control treatment in persistent atrial fibrillation (Data of the Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion (RACE) Study). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1298–1306
  70. Al-Khatib SM, Shaw LK, Lee KL, et al. Is rhythm control superior to rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure?. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:797–800
  71. Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2667–2677
  72. The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Investigators. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1825–1833
  73. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Feldman AM, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult-summary article. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1116–1143
  74. Aronow WS. Treatment of heart failure with abnormal left ventricular systolic function in the elderly. Heart Fail Clin. 2008;3:423–436
  75. Ozcan C, Jahangir A, Friedman PA, et al. Long-term survival after ablation of the atrioventricular node and implantation of a permanent pacemaker in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1043–1051
  76. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(suppl 1):S1–S246
  77. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CNB, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:227–239
  78. The Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) Investigators. High-dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:549–559
  79. Sukhija R, Burac Z, Kakar P, et al. Effect of statins on the development of renal dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:975–979
  80. Wanner C, Krane V, Marz W, et al. Atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis. N Eng J Med. 2005;353:238–248

PII: S0272-6386(09)00425-9

doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.01.257

American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 53, Issue 4 , Pages 701-710, April 2009

Article Tools