Studies have reported excess risk of mortality associated with digoxin in atrial fibrillation (AF).This study sought to investigate if these findings could be replicated and whether a potential association could be explained by bias.

Using Danish Nationwide registers, a nested-case control study from 2012 to 2022 was conducted in a cohort of patients with AF. Cases were defined as death of any cause and the exposure was treatment with digoxin compared with beta blockers/verapamil. To investigate bias, additional analyses with negative control outcomes as case definitions-in which we would not expect a plausible association (eg, nursing home admission)-were employed. Associations were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

A total of 59,748 cases were identified and matched 1:10 with controls (53% men, median age: 84 [IQR: 77-89]). Digoxin was associated with increased rates of mortality in the entire cohort (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.78-1.92) as well as subgroups such as patients with heart failure (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.65-2.06), diabetes (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.6-2.14), and kidney disease (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.8). Significant associations with all negative control outcomes were also found, most notably nursing home admissions (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.67-1.93).

Digoxin use was associated with increased mortality in AF. However, negative control outcomes were also associated with digoxin use indicating that the described association between digoxin and mortality is likely not causal and being prescribed digoxin is merely a marker of more advanced disease and frailty.

To perform a systematic umbrella review with meta-analysis to evaluate the certainty of evidence on mortality risk associated with digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with or without heart failure (HF).

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to 19 October 2021. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies investigating digoxin effects on mortality of adult patients with AF and/or HF. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool and the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses by the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool.

Eleven studies accounting for 12 meta-analyses were included with a total of 4,586,515 patients. AMSTAR2 analysis showed a high quality in 1, moderate in 5, low in 2, and critically low in 3 studies. Digoxin was associated with an increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.14-1.25) with moderate certainty of evidence and with an increased cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.19, 95%CI 1.06-1.33) with moderate certainty of evidence. Subgroup analysis showed that digoxin was associated with all-cause mortality both in patients with AF alone (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.19-1.28) and in those with AF and HF (HR 1.14, 95%CI 1.12-1.16).

Data from this umbrella review suggests that digoxin use is associated with a moderate increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in AF patients regardless of the presence of HF.

This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325321).

Once a routine part of atrial fibrillation (AF) management, digoxin use has declined. Likely hastening this decline are findings from several studies and systematic reviews identifying a potential association between digoxin use and all-cause mortality in AF populations. However, inconsistency exists within some of these studies potentially leading to confusion among clinicians. To critically evaluate the current literature to contextualize the associations between digoxin and mortality risk in patients with AF by performing an overview of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS from their earliest date through October 12, 2020, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) that included studies enrolling patients with AF or atrial flutter and evaluated the association between digoxin use and all-cause mortality. We used the AMSTAR 2 tool to assess the risk of bias for each included SR. Results from reviews are qualitatively synthesized. Our search identified 10 SRs that met our inclusion criteria. Of the 41 unique AF studies included in these SRs, 41% were cohort studies, 29% were post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 15% were RCTs, and 15% were registry studies. Based on our AMSTAR 2 assessment, the overall confidence in the results of the 10 reviews was rated as "moderate" in three SRs, "low" in three SRs, and "critically low" in the rest. Except for one review, each included SR shows that digoxin use in AF is associated with a 15 to 38% higher risk of all-cause mortality. This association may be greater when AF-only populations are considered compared with a mix of AF and heart failure populations. Serum digoxin concentration (SDC) data were infrequently considered, but available data suggested a greater association between increasing SDC and all-cause mortality. This overview of reviews found general consistency regarding the association between digoxin use and higher all-cause mortality in AF populations. However, heterogeneity exists among and between SRs and an unmet need exists for additional study in a RCT setting with close monitoring and reporting of SDC to better inform clinical practice.

Recently published studies suggested that digoxin may increase mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, in the vast majority of former trials serum digoxin concentration (SDC) was not measured and therapy was not SDC-guided.

To assess the impact of SDC-guided digoxin therapy on mortality in HFrEF patients.

Data of 580 HFrEF patients were retrospectively analyzed. In patients on digoxin, SDC was measured every 3 months and digoxin dosage was SDC-guided (target SDC: 0.5-0.9 ng/mL). All-cause mortality of digoxin users and nonusers was compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

After 7.1 ± 4.7 years follow-up period (FUP) all-cause mortality of digoxin users (n = 180) was significantly higher than nonusers (n = 297) (propensity-adjusted HR = 1.430; 95% CI = 1.134-1.804; P = .003). Patients having SDC of 0.9 to 1.1 ng/mL (n = 60) or > 1.1 ng/mL (n = 44) at any time during the FUP had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.750; 95% CI = 1.257-2.436, P = .001 and HR = 1.687; 95% CI = 1.153-2.466, P = .007), while patients having a maximal SDC < 0.9 ng/mL (n = 76) had similar mortality risk (HR = 1.139; 95% CI = 0.827-1.570, P = .426), compared to digoxin nonusers.

According to our propensity-matched analysis, SDC-guided digoxin therapy was associated with increased all-cause mortality in optimally treated HFrEF patients, especially with SDC ≥0.9 ng/mL. These results reinforce the expert opinion that digoxin in HFrEF can only be used among carefully selected patients with close SDC monitoring.

Digoxin has been used for more than 50 years in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF), with the goal of Controlling Heart Rate (HR) and restoring sinus rhythm. In the last two decades, several studies have correlated therapeutic use of digoxin with increased mortality. However, such studies have potential biases that cannot be disregarded, mainly because they are cross-sectional experiments or post-hoc analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Despite uncertainties regarding the safety of digoxin in this setting, it remains one of the most prescribed drugs for AF worldwide. On the other hand, the absence of any RCTs designed to evaluate mortality makes a definitive conclusion more difficult to reach; therefore, this medication must be used with care. In this review, we explored the therapeutic use of digoxin in the context of AF, discussed mortality data by means of critical analysis in the light of the best available evidence, and position ourselves in relation to more rigorous control of serum levels of this drug in daily practice.

Background Digoxin use was shown to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation ( AF ). We hypothesized that digoxin may affect cardiovascular risk by increasing platelet activation. Methods and Results Post hoc analysis of a prospective study of anticoagulated patients with AF . Patients were divided into 2 groups balanced for age, sex, and cardiovascular risk factors: digoxin users (n=132) and nonusers (n=388). Urinary excretion of 11-dehydro-thromboxane B₂ (TxB₂), a marker of platelet activation, and serum digoxin concentration ( SDC ) were measured. In vitro experiments were performed on platelets from healthy subjects and AF patients, which were incubated with scalar doses of digoxin (0.6-2.4 ng/mL) with or without prestimulation with a sub-threshold of collagen. Median 11-dehydro-TxB₂ was 105.0 ( interquartile range, 60.0-190.0) ng/mg creatinine, and median SDC was 0.65 ( interquartile range, 0.40-1.00) ng/mL. Urinary 11-dehydro-TxB₂ and SDC were correlated ( r_s=0.350, P<0.001). Patients in the upper tertile of SDC showed higher 11-dehydro-TxB₂ compared with non-digoxin users ( P=0.019). In vitro study showed an increased basal platelet activation in patients with AF compared with healthy subjects . Digoxin (2.4 ng/mL) induced calcium mobilization, PAC -1 (procaspase-activating compound 1) and platelet aggregation in AF patients but not in healthy subjects . After pretreatment with a sub-threshold of collagen, digoxin dose-dependent induced calcium mobilization, arachidonic acid release, TxB₂ biosynthesis, PAC -1 and soluble platelet selectin expression, and platelet aggregation, which were inhibited by antibody against digoxin. Conclusions We found a significant in vivo correlation between SDC and platelet activation. Supratherapeutic SDC increased in vitro platelet aggregation via calcium-related phospholipase A₂ phosphorylation. Our findings may have clinical implications for AF patients treated with digoxin.

To examine variation in outcomes, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) and measurement times in clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in developing a core outcome set (COS) in this field.

This study was a systematic review.

Clinical trials published between January 2015 and March 2019 were obtained from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were considered. Interventions included traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. The required treatment duration or follow-up time was ≥4 weeks. The required sample size was ≥30 and≥50 in each group in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. We excluded trials that aimed to investigate the outcome of complications of NVAF, to assess the mechanisms or pharmacokinetics, or for which full text could not be acquired.

The general information and outcomes, OMIs and measurement times were extracted. The methodological and outcome reporting quality were assessed. The results were analysed by descriptive analysis.

A total of 218 articles were included from 25 255 articles. For clinical trials of antiarrhythmic therapy, 69 outcomes from 16 outcome domains were reported, and 28 (31.82%, 28/88) outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was ultrasonic cardiogram. Thirty-one outcomes (44.93%, 31/69) were provided definitions or OMIs; the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 20 with a median of 3. For clinical trials of anticoagulation therapy, 82 outcomes from 18 outcome domains were reported; 38 (29.23%, 38/130) outcomes were reported only once. The most frequently reported outcome was ischaemic stroke. Forty (48.78%, 40/82) outcomes were provided OMIs or definitions; and the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 27 with a median of 8.

Outcome reporting in NVAF is inconsistent. Thus, developing a COS that can be used in clinical trials is necessary.

Atrial fibrillation often occurs as a cause or consequence of heart failure. Clinical outcomes are worse when atrial fibrillation and heart failure coexist. There are important sex-related differences in the incidence, prevalence, pathophysiology, treatment, and outcomes of these patients. Women with heart failure are at greater risk of developing atrial fibrillation than men, and more women with atrial fibrillation develop heart failure. More women die of atrial fibrillation-related strokes. Despite significant morbidity and mortality, current treatments for women are inadequate. This review explores sex differences in atrial fibrillation and heart failure, emphasizing risk stratification and treatments to improve clinical outcomes.

A number of recent observational analyses have assessed clinical outcomes associated with digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation. In this review, we review these data and provide suggestions on the contemporary use of digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation as supported by the recent evidence.

Observational data from clinical trials and registries have provided variable results on the safety and efficacy of chronic digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation. In general, results have been consistent with an associated increase in adverse clinical outcomes with digoxin use in atrial fibrillation patients without heart failure. In atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure, while the weight of evidence suggested an associated risk with digoxin therapy, the results are inconsistent. In patients with atrial fibrillation without heart failure, digoxin should generally be avoided. In atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure, digoxin should generally be reserved for patients that do not achieve adequate rate control or are not tolerant of other rate control therapies.

Digoxin is commonly prescribed to elderly patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, and macrolide antibiotics markedly increase the risk of digoxin toxicity.

The aim was to determine whether, in older patients receiving digoxin, macrolide antibiotics are associated with sudden death.

We used a population-based, nested, case-control design from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2012 in a cohort of Ontario residents aged 66 years or older prescribed digoxin. The primary outcome was the risk of sudden death within 14 days of exposure to one of three antibiotics (erythromycin, clarithromycin, or azithromycin), relative to cefuroxime.

Among 39,072 Ontarians who died suddenly while receiving digoxin, 586 died within 14 days of receiving a study antibiotic. Relative to cefuroxime, we found no statistically significant increase in the risk of sudden death following treatment with erythromycin [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.48], clarithromycin (aOR 1.25; 95% CI 0.94-1.65), or azithromycin (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.75-1.53).

This finding reinforces the cardiovascular safety of macrolide antibiotics in a high-risk population.

Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) are main concerns in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, factors affecting MACCEs remain inconclusive in AF patients chronically treated with digoxin. We investigated the major clinical determinants for fatal MACCEs in AF patients treated with digoxin over a 10-year follow-up period.

We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,480 AF patients at Eulji University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea from March 2004 to August 2015. Among this population, 402 consecutive patients receiving chronic digoxin therapy were selected for the study. Data for electrocardiography, medication history, laboratory values including the serum digoxin concentration (SDC) and fatal MACCEs were collected. All data were divided and compared between groups based on the occurrence of MACCEs.

The overall incidence of fatal MACCEs among the 402 digoxin-treated AF patients (age, 68 ± 11 years; male, 40.3%) was 12.1%. These fatalities resulted from heart failure (46.1%), fatal stroke (26.9%), fatal myocardial infarction (15.3%) and sudden cardiac death (5.7%). A higher prevalence of diabetes, pre-existing ischemic heart disease (IHD), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), higher SDC, and junctional bradycardia were more frequently observed in patients with MACCEs compared to those without MACCEs. Multivariable analysis showed that an eGFR of ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and pre-existing IHD had a hazard ratio of 3.35 and a confidence interval of 1.64-6.87 (P < 0.001) for fatal MACCEs.

Chronic kidney disease stage III-V with pre-existing IHD is significantly associated with increased cardiac and cerebrovascular mortality in AF patients with chronic digoxin use.

Although inappropriate use of digoxin has been described in various populations, a real-world evaluation of patterns of digoxin prescription has not been well studied in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to identify prevalence, indications and appropriateness of digoxin use in the general population of patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF) in Turkey.

We included and classified patients from the RAMSES (ReAl-life Multicentre Survey Evaluating Stroke prevention strategies in Turkey) study, a prospective registry including 6273 patients with NVAF, on the basis of digoxin use. After excluding the data of 73 patients whose medical history about digoxin use or left ventricle function was absent, 6200 patients were included for the final analysis. Digoxin use was considered inappropriate if patients did not have left ventricular systolic dysfunction or symptomatic heart failure (HF).

Digoxin was used in 1274 (20·5%) patients. Patients treated with digoxin were older (71·4 ± 9·8 years vs. 69·2 ± 10·9 years, P < 0·001), more likely to be female (58·8% vs. 55·9%, P = 0·019) and had more common comorbidities such as HF (40·2% vs. 17·4%), diabetes (26·4% vs. 21·1%), coronary artery disease (35·3 vs. 27·6%) and persistent/permanent AF (93·4% vs. 78·4%; P < 0·001 for each comparison). Of the 1274 patients, the indication of digoxin use was considered inappropriate in 762 (59·8%).

Our findings show that nearly one-fifth of the patients with NVAF were on digoxin therapy and nearly 60% of these patients were receiving digoxin with inappropriate indications in a real-world setting.

This study investigated the impact of chronic kidney disease on all-causes and cardiovascular mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with digoxin.

All patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter as hospitalization diagnosis from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2012 were identified in Danish nationwide administrative registries. Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the adjusted risk of all-causes and cardiovascular mortality among patients with and without chronic kidney disease and among patients with different chronic kidney disease stages within 180 days and 2 years from the first digoxin prescription.

We identified 37,981 patients receiving digoxin; 1884 patients had the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Cox regression analysis showed no statistically significant differences in all-causes (Hazard Ratio, HR 0.89; 95% confident interval, CI 0.78-1.03) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.88; 95%CI 0.74-1.05) among patients with and without chronic kidney disease within 180 days of follow-up period. No statistically significant differences was found using a 2 years follow-up period neither for all causes mortality (HR 0.90; 95%CI 0.79-1.03), nor for cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.87; 95%CI 0.74-1.02). No statistically significant differences was found comparing patients with and without estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate <30ml/min/1.73m2 and patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease, for all-causes and cardiovascular mortality within 180 days and 2 years from the first digoxin prescription.

This study suggest no direct effect of chronic kidney disease and chronic kidney disease stages on all-causes and cardiovascular mortality within both 180 days and 2 years from the first digoxin prescription in patients treatment-naïve with digoxin for non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Since its isolation in the 1930s, digoxin has played a pivotal role in the treatment of cardiac conditions including heart failure and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. The parasympathomimetic activity makes digoxin a reasonable option for controlling ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the unique pharmacokinetic properties, electrolyte-dependent effects, and P-glycoprotein drug interactions influence the clinical use of digoxin. In addition, the delayed onset and narrow therapeutic index can make digoxin utilization cumbersome and often necessitates serum drug monitoring. Despite digoxin's extensive history, recent literature has cast doubt on the efficacy and safety of this medication in the population with AF. Large amounts of data suggest digoxin offers no benefit on mortality and may increase the risk of mortality though this was not consistent in all evaluations. While robust, the majority of the available studies are not randomized which limits the ability to draw firm conclusions. The potential risk of mortality must be weighed against the expected benefits of digoxin use to make individualized patient care decisions. Clinicians should refrain from utilizing digoxin monotherapy for rate control in AF when other options are viable.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) during sepsis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but practice patterns and outcomes associated with rate- and rhythm-targeted treatments for AF during sepsis are unclear.

This was a retrospective cohort study using enhanced billing data from approximately 20% of United States hospitals. We identified factors associated with IV AF treatments (?-blockers [BBs], calcium channel blockers [CCBs], digoxin, or amiodarone) during sepsis. We used propensity score matching and instrumental variable approaches to compare mortality between AF treatments.

Among 39,693 patients with AF during sepsis, mean age was 77 ± 11 years, 49% were women, and 76% were white. CCBs were the most commonly selected initial AF treatment during sepsis (14,202 patients [36%]), followed by BBs (11,290 [28%]), digoxin (7,937 [20%]), and amiodarone (6,264 [16%]). Initial AF treatment selection differed according to geographic location, hospital teaching status, and physician specialty. In propensity-matched analyses, BBs were associated with lower hospital mortality when compared with CCBs (n = 18,720; relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97), digoxin (n = 13,994; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), and amiodarone (n = 5,378; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.69). Instrumental variable analysis showed similar results (adjusted RR fifth quintile vs first quintile of hospital BB use rate, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79). Results were similar among subgroups with new-onset or preexisting AF, heart failure, vasopressor-dependent shock, or hypertension.

Although CCBs were the most frequently used IV medications for AF during sepsis, BBs were associated with superior clinical outcomes in all subgroups analyzed. Our findings provide rationale for clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of AF rate- and rhythm-targeted treatments during sepsis.

Introduction. Digoxin is used to control ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation (AF). There is conflicting evidence regarding safety of digoxin. We aimed to evaluate the risk of mortality with digoxin use in patients with AF using meta-analyses. Methods. PubMed was searched for studies comparing outcomes of patients with AF taking digoxin versus no digoxin, with or without heart failure (HF). Studies were excluded if they reported only a point estimate of mortality, duplicated patient populations, and/or did not report adjusted hazard ratios (HR). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Adjusted HRs were combined using generic inverse variance and log hazard ratios. A multivariate metaregression model was used to explore heterogeneity in studies. Results. Twelve studies with 321,944 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In all AF patients, irrespective of heart failure status, digoxin is associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR [1.23], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.31). However, digoxin is not associated with increased mortality in patients with AF and HF (HR [1.08], 95% CI 0.99-1.18). In AF patients without HF digoxin is associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR [1.38], 95% CI 1.12-1.71). Conclusion. In patients with AF and HF, digoxin use is not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality when used for rate control.

Digoxin is still commonly used in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with and without heart failure (HF) for heart rate control. Studies concerning the detrimental effects of digoxin therapy in AF patients are inconsistent. This updated meta-analysis examined the association of digoxin therapy with all-cause mortality in AF patients, stratified by heart function status. We included observational studies with multivariate-adjusted data on digoxin and all-cause mortality in the analysis. The relative risks (RRs) of all-cause mortality were calculated and reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Seventeen studies comprising 408,660 patients were included. Overall, in AF patients, digoxin treatment was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality after multivariate-adjustment (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.15-1.30). When stratified by heart function status, digoxin treatment was associated with a 14% increase in all-cause mortality in AF patients with HF (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.24), and a 36% increase in those without HF (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). The increased risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in AF patients without HF compared with those with HF (P for interaction = 0.04). This meta-analysis demonstrates that digoxin therapy was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality in AF patients, especially in those without HF. Given other available options, digoxin should be avoided as a first-line agent for heart rate control in AF patients.

To review digoxin use in systolic congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and after myocardial infarction.

A comprehensive PubMed search was performed using the key words "digoxin and congestive heart failure", "digoxin and atrial fibrillation", "digoxin, atrial fibrillation and systolic congestive heart failure", and "digoxin and myocardial infarction". Only articles written in English were included in this study. We retained studies originating from randomized controlled trials, registries and included at least 500 patients. The studies included patients with atrial fibrillation or heart failure or myocardial infarction and had a significant proportion of patients (at least 5%) on digoxin. A table reviewing the different hazard ratios was developed based on the articles selected. Our primary endpoint was the overall mortality in the patients on digoxin vs those without digoxin, among patients with atrial fibrillation and also among patients with atrial fibrillation and systolic heart failure. We reviewed the most recent international guidelines to discuss current recommendations.

A total of 18 studies were found that evaluated digoxin and overall mortality in different clinical settings including systolic congestive heart failure and normal sinus rhythm (n = 5), atrial fibrillation with and without systolic congestive heart failure (n = 9), and myocardial infarction (n = 4). Overall, patients with systolic congestive heart failure with normal sinus rhythm, digoxin appears to have a neutral effect on mortality especially if close digoxin level monitoring is employed. However, most of the observational studies evaluating digoxin use in atrial fibrillation without systolic congestive heart failure showed an increase in overall mortality when taking digoxin. In the studies evaluated in this systematic review, the data among patients with atrial fibrillation and systolic congestive heart failure, as well as post myocardial infarction were more controversial. The extent to which discrepancies among studies are based on statistical methods is currently unclear, as these studies' findings are generated by retrospective analyses that employed different techniques to address confounding.

Based on the potential risks and benefits, as well as the presence of alternative drugs, there is a limited role for digoxin in the management of patients with normal sinus rhythm and congestive heart failure. Based on the retrospective studies reviewed there is a growing volume of data showing increased mortality in those with only atrial fibrillation. The proper role of digoxin is, however, less certain in other subgroups of patients, such as those with both atrial fibrillation and systolic congestive heart failure or after a myocardial infarction. Further studies may provide helpful information for such subgroups of patients.

The use of digoxin in patients having atrial fibrillation (AF) with or without heart failure (HF) is not without controversy. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of digoxin therapy on mortality stratified by HF.

Gulf Survey of Atrial Fibrillation Events was a prospective, multinational, observational registry of consecutive patients with AF recruited from the emergency department of 23 hospitals in 6 countries in the Middle East. Patients were recruited between October 2009 and June 2010 and followed up for 1 year after enrollment. Analyses were performed using univariate and multivariate statistical techniques.

The study included a total of 1962 patients with AF, with an overall mean age of 56 ± 16 years, and 52% (n = 1026) were males. At hospital discharge, digoxin was prescribed in 36% (n = 709) of the patients, whereas HF was present in 27% (n = 528) of the cohort. A total of 225 (12.1%) patients died during the 12-month follow-up period after discharge (5.3% [n = 104] were lost to follow-up). Patients with HF were consistently associated with higher mortality at 1 month (5.1% vs 2.1%; P < .001), 6 months (17.2% vs 5.0%; P < 0.001), and 12 months (24.3% vs 7.6%; P < .001) when compared to those without HF. When stratified by HF, digoxin therapy was associated with significantly higher mortality in those without HF at 6 months (8.7% vs 3.7%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 5.07; P < .001) and 12 months (12.3% vs 6.0%; aOR, 4.22; P < .001) but not in those with HF (6 months: 18.6% vs 14.7%; aOR, 1.62; P = .177 and 12 months: 25.4% vs 22.4%; aOR, 1.37; P = .317).

In patients with AF and HF, digoxin did not offer any survival advantages. However, in those without HF, digoxin therapy was, in fact, associated with significantly higher long-term mortality.

To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods.

Comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, reference lists, and ongoing studies according to a prospectively registered design (

CRD42014010783), including all studies published from 1960 to July 2014 that examined treatment with digoxin compared with control (placebo or no treatment).

Unadjusted and adjusted data pooled according to study design, analysis method, and risk of bias.

Primary outcome (all cause mortality) and secondary outcomes (including admission to hospital) were meta-analysed with random effects modelling.

52 studies were systematically reviewed, comprising 621,845 patients. Digoxin users were 2.4 years older than control (weighted difference 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.6), with lower ejection fraction (33% v 42%), more diabetes, and greater use of diuretics and anti-arrhythmic drugs. Meta-analysis included 75 study analyses, with a combined total of 4,006,210 patient years of follow-up. Compared with control, the pooled risk ratio for death with digoxin was 1.76 in unadjusted analyses (1.57 to 1.97), 1.61 in adjusted analyses (1.31 to 1.97), 1.18 in propensity matched studies (1.09 to 1.26), and 0.99 in randomised controlled trials (0.93 to 1.05). Meta-regression confirmed that baseline differences between treatment groups had a significant impact on mortality associated with digoxin, including markers of heart failure severity such as use of diuretics (P=0.004). Studies with better methods and lower risk of bias were more likely to report a neutral association of digoxin with mortality (P<0.001). Across all study types, digoxin led to a small but significant reduction in all cause hospital admission (risk ratio 0.92, 0.89 to 0.95; P<0.001; n=29,525).

Digoxin is associated with a neutral effect on mortality in randomised trials and a lower rate of admissions to hospital across all study types. Regardless of statistical analysis, prescription biases limit the value of observational data.

There are conflicting data regarding the effect of digoxin use on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or with congestive heart failure (CHF). The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide detailed analysis of the currently available study reports. We performed a MEDLINE and a COCHRANE search (1993-2014) of the English literature dealing with the effects of digoxin on all-cause-mortality in subjects with AF or CHF. Only full-sized articles published in peer-reviewed journals were considered for this meta-analysis. A total of 19 reports were identified. Nine reports dealt with AF patients, seven with patients suffering from CHF, and three with both clinical conditions. Based on the analysis of adjusted mortality results of all 19 studies comprising 326 426 patients, digoxin use was associated with an increased relative risk of all-cause mortality [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07 to 1.38, P < 0.01]. Compared with subjects not receiving glycosides, digoxin was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk (HR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.39) in the subgroup of publications comprising 235 047 AF patients. Among 91.379 heart failure patients, digoxin-associated mortality risk increased by 14% (HR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.22). The present systematic review and meta-analysis of all available data sources suggest that digoxin use is associated with an increased mortality risk, particularly among patients suffering from AF.