Comparison of Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Reduced Versus Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

The impact of nurse-led atrial fibrillation clinics on patient and healthcare outcomes: a systematic mixed studies review

Background:

Atrial fibrillation, the most common arrhythmia worldwide, continues to increase as the population ages. Patients with atrial fibrillation, particularly those newly diagnosed or who have multiple comorbidities, have high healthcare utilisation rates. Nurse-led atrial fibrillation clinics have developed to improve care and guidance for atrial fibrillation patients, with the potential to reduce hospital presentations and healthcare utilisation. Atrial fibrillation clinics that provide specialised and patient-centred care have improved patient symptom management, quality of life and reduced healthcare utilisation and costs.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to provide the first synthesis of evidence for the impact of nurse-led atrial fibrillation clinics on patient, healthcare utilisation, and quality of care outcomes.

Methods:

This systematic mixed studies review examined citations from three databases: Medline, CINAHL and Embase, using the search terms ‘atrial fibrillation’ and ‘clinic’, and related concepts. Seventeen moderate to high quality articles were selected.

Results:

Overall, atrial fibrillation clinics were more cost effective, had shorter wait times and reduced hospitalisation and emergency department visits. Symptoms and sinus rhythm restoration were comparable in the nurse-led compared to physician-led cardioversion clinics. Findings related to patient knowledge and patient satisfaction were mixed, while mortality rates were lower, and patient medication adherence was higher in nurse-led atrial fibrillation compared to usual care. Quality of life and guideline adherence was increased in patients receiving nurse-led atrial fibrillation care compared to usual care.

Conclusion:

Nurse-led clinics improved healthcare, patient and quality care outcomes. Future research might examine the role of technology in delivery of nurse-led clinics in rural/remote areas as well as patient experiences with nurse-led clinics.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The role of catheter ablation (CA) is increasingly recognized as a reasonable therapeutic option in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF).

HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to compare CA to medical therapy in AF patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

We searched the literature for randomized clinical trials comparing CA to medical therapy in this population.

RESULTS

Six trials with a total of 775 patients were included. AF was persistent in 95% of patients with a mean duration of 18.5 ± 23 months prior enrollment. The mean age was 62.2 ± 7.8 years, mostly males (83%) with mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 31.2 ± 6.7%. Compared to medical therapy, CA has significantly improved LVEF by 5.9% (Mean difference [MD] 5.93, confidence interval [CI] 3.59-8.27, P < 0.00001, I²  = 87%), quality of life, (MD -9.01, CI -15.56, -2.45, P = 0.007, I² = 47%), and functional capacity (MD 25.82, CI 5.46-46.18, P = 0.01, I² = 90%). CA has less HF hospital readmissions (odds ratio [OR] 0.5, CI 0.32-0.78, P = 0.002, I² = 0%) and death from any cause (OR 0.46, CI 0.29-0.73, P = 0.0009, I² = 0%). Freedom from AF during follow-up was higher in patients who had CA (OR 24.2, CI 6.94-84.41, P < 0.00001, I² = 81%.

CONCLUSION

CA was superior to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFrEF in terms of symptoms, hemodynamic response, and clinical outcomes by reducing AF burden. However, these findings are applicable to the very specific patients enrolled in these trials.

Ibutilide Effectiveness and Safety in the Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter in the Community Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the use of ibutilide for cardioversion in atrial fibrillation and flutter outside of clinical trials. We seek to describe patient characteristics, ibutilide administration patterns, cardioversion rates, and adverse outcomes in the community emergency department (ED) setting. We also evaluate potential predictors of cardioversion success.

METHODS

Using a retrospective cohort of adults who received ibutilide in 21 community EDs between January 2009 and June 2015, we gathered demographic and clinical variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We calculated rates of cardioversion and frequency of ventricular tachycardia within 4 hours and estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) in a multivariate regression model for potential predictors of cardioversion.

RESULTS

Among 361 patients, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range 53 to 71 years) and most had recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter (98.1%). Five percent of the cohort had a history of heart failure. The initial QTc interval was prolonged (>480 ms) in 29.4% of patients, and 3.1% were hypokalemic (<3.5 mEq/L). The mean ibutilide dose was 1.5 mg (SD 0.5 mg) and the rate of ibutilide-related cardioversion within 4 hours was 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.6% to 60.1%), 50.5% for atrial fibrillation and 75.0% for atrial flutter. Two patients experienced ventricular tachycardia (0.6%), both during their second ibutilide infusion. Age (in decades) (aOR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5), atrial flutter (versus atrial fibrillation) (aOR 2.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 5.1), and no history of atrial fibrillation and flutter (aOR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.1) were associated with cardioversion.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of ibutilide in this community ED setting were consistent with clinical trial results despite less stringent patient selection criteria.