Atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) patients with renal impairment have poor long-term prognosis, but their emergency department (ED) management has not been described. We investigated the association of renal impairment upon outcomes after rate or rhythm control (RRC) including ED-based adverse events (AE) and treatment failure.

This cohort study used an electrocardiogram database from two urban centres to identify consecutive AFF patients and reviewed charts to obtain comorbidities, ED management, including RRC, prespecified AE, and treatment failure. Patients were dichotomized into a normal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or impaired renal function (“low eGFR”). Primary and secondary outcomes were prespecified AEs and treatment failure, respectively. We calculated 1) adjusted excess AE risk for patients with decreased renal function receiving RRC; and 2) adjusted odds ratio of RRC treatment failure.

Of 1,112 consecutive ED AFF patients, 412 (37.0%) had a low eGFR. Crude AE rates for RRC were 27/238 (11.3%) for patients with normal renal function and 26/103 (25.2%) for patients with low eGFR. For patients with low eGFR receiving RRC, adjusted excess AE risk was 13.7%. (95% CI 1.7 to 25.1%). For patients with low eGFR, adjusted odds ratio for RRC failure was 3.07. (95% CI 1.74 to 5.43)

In this cohort of ED AFF patients receiving RRC, those with low eGFR had significantly increased adjusted excess risk of AE compared with patients with normal renal function. Odds of treatment failure were also significantly increased.

It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims to compare ABLC and L-AmB effectiveness and safety outcomes in these subgroups of patients.

The search was performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. Inclusion criteria: treatment comparing L-AmB with ABLC; patients who had (i) refractory infection after being treated with d-AmB, (ii) previous renal impairment, or (iii) unacceptable d-AmB toxicity. Two investigators independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. A total of 1,054 articles were identified in the literature. Among those, eleven were selected for full-text reading and five met the inclusion criteria.

The five articles included reported on four separate observational studies. Overall, no significant difference was found in clinical relevant outcomes as new-onset dialysis, length of hospital stay, or mortality when comparing both lipid formulations. The studies reported a trend toward lower nephrotoxicity in patients treated with L-AmB. However, the results were imprecise and heterogeneous and the studies presented important methodological biases.

The studies included in this systematic review pointed toward less nephrotoxicity events in the L-AmB group. However, due to low quality of evidence and no statistically significant differences in other clinical relevant outcomes, there is no definitive evidence of overall superiority in effectiveness or safety outcomes regarding one lipid formulation or another in this population subgroup.