SynthesisBMJ open2020
Managing new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: a systematic narrative review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review on the influence of coagulopathy and immune activation on New Onset Atrial Fibrillation in patients with sepsis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2023Trial
- A prospective, multi-site, observational study assessing the treatment thresholds of new onset atrial fibrillation in the critically ill.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Definitions and outcomes reported in studies investigating the management of new onset atrial fibrillation in acutely unwell patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a scoping review.European heart journal open · 2026Review
- Association between deep learning-based atrial fibrillation burden and in-hospital mortality.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and pharmacological management of new onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill adults: A multicentre observational study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation in adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Comparison of rhythm and rate control medications for new-onset atrial fibrillation in septic patients: MIMIC-IV database analysis.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond the Beat: A Multifaceted Review of Atrial Fibrillation in Sepsis: Risk Factors, Management Strategies, and Economic Impact.Cardiology research · 2025Review
- Analyzing the association of critical illness and cardioversion success in patients with atrial fibrillation at the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Landiolol for Treatment of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- [Perioperative atrial fibrillation : Diagnosis with underestimated relevance].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2024Article
- Development ofBMJ open · 2023Article
- Comparative effectiveness of common treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation within the ICU: Accounting for physiological status.Journal of critical care · 2022Article
- Atrial Fibrillation in COVID-19: Therapeutic Target or Grave Omen?Heart, lung & circulation · 2021Article
- Rhythm-control therapy for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients: A post hoc analysis from the prospective multicenter observational AFTER-ICU study.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this review is to summarise the latest evidence on efficacy and safety of treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critical illness.
participantsCritically ill adult patients who developed NOAF during admission. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were efficacy in achieving rate or rhythm control, as defined in each study. Secondary outcomes included mortality, stroke, bleeding and adverse events.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge on 11 March 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting treatment efficacy for NOAF in critically ill patients. Data were extracted, and quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsOf 1406 studies identified, 16 remained after full-text screening including two RCTs. Study quality was generally low due to a lack of randomisation, absence of blinding and small cohorts. Amiodarone was the most commonly studied agent (10 studies), followed by beta-blockers (8), calcium channel blockers (6) and magnesium (3). Rates of successful rhythm control using amiodarone varied from 30.0% to 95.2%, beta-blockers from 31.8% to 92.3%, calcium channel blockers from 30.0% to 87.1% and magnesium from 55.2% to 77.8%. Adverse effects of treatment were rarely reported (five studies).
conclusionThe reported efficacy of beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, magnesium and amiodarone for achieving rhythm control was highly varied. As there is currently significant variation in how NOAF is managed in critically ill patients, we recommend future research focuses on comparing the efficacy and safety of amiodarone, beta-blockers and magnesium. Further research is needed to inform the decision surrounding anticoagulant use in this patient group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.