Home-based management of patients with atrial fibrillation

Multidisciplinary Approach in Atrial Fibrillation: As Good as Gold

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common sustained arrhythmia necessitating dual focus: acute complication management and sustained longitudinal oversight to modulate disease progression and ensure comprehensive patient care over time. AF is a multifaceted disorder; due to such a great number of potential exacerbating conditions, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) should manage AF patients by cooperating with a cardiologist. Effective management of AF patients necessitates the implementation of a well-coordinated and tailored care pathway aimed at delivering optimized treatment through collaboration among various healthcare professionals. Management of AF should be carefully evaluated and mutually agreed upon in consultation with healthcare providers. It is crucial to recognize that treatment may evolve due to the emergence of new risk factors, symptoms, disease progression, and advancements in treatment modalities. In the context of multidisciplinary AF teams, a coordinated approach involves assembling a diverse team tailored to meet individual patients' unique needs based on local services' availability.

Evaluating the benefits of home-based management of atrial fibrillation: current perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide, leading to an extensive public health and economic burden. The increasing incidence and prevalence of AF is due to the advancing age of the population, structural heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and thyroid disease. The majority of costs associated with AF have been attributed to the cost of hospitalization. In order to minimize costs and decrease hospitalizations, counseling on modifiable risk factors contributing to AF has been strongly emphasized. With the release of novel oral anticoagulants bypassing the need for anticoagulant bridging or laboratory monitoring, post-discharge nurse-led home intervention, and novel methods of heart rate monitoring, home-based AF management has reached a new level of ease and sophistication. In this review, we aimed to review modifiable risk factors for AF and various methods of home-based management of AF, along with their benefits.

Impact of Nurse-Led, Multidisciplinary Home-Based Intervention on Event-Free Survival Across the Spectrum of Chronic Heart Disease: Composite Analysis of Health Outcomes in 1226 Patients From 3 Randomized Trials

Background—

We sought to determine the overall impact of a nurse-led, multidisciplinary home-based intervention (HBI) adapted to hospitalized patients with chronic forms of heart disease of varying types.

Methods and Results—

Prospectively planned, combined, secondary analysis of 3 randomized trials (1226 patients) of HBI were compared with standard management. Hospitalized patients presenting with heart disease but not heart failure, atrial fibrillation but not heart failure, and heart failure, as well, were recruited. Overall, 612 and 614 patients, respectively, were allocated to a home visit 7 to 14 days postdischarge by a cardiac nurse with follow-up and multidisciplinary support according to clinical need or standard management. The primary outcome of days-alive and out-of-hospital was examined on an intention-to-treat basis. During 1371 days (interquartile range, 1112–1605) of follow-up, 218 patients died and 17 917 days of hospital stay were recorded. In comparison with standard management, HBI patients achieved significantly prolonged event-free survival (90.1% [95% confidence interval, 88.2–92.0] versus 87.2% [95% confidence interval, 85.1–89.3] days-alive and out-of-hospital; P=0.020). This reflected less all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.50–0.88; P=0.005) and unplanned hospital stay (median, 0.22 [interquartile range, 0–1.3] versus 0.36 [0–2.1] days/100 days follow-up; P=0.011). Analyses of the differential impact of HBI on all-cause mortality showed significant interactions (characterized by U-shaped relationships) with age (P=0.005) and comorbidity (P=0.041); HBI was most effective for those aged 60 to 82 years (59%–65% of individual trial cohorts) and with a Charlson Comorbidity Index Score of 5 to 8 (36%–61%).

Conclusions—

These data provide further support for the application of postdischarge HBI across the full spectrum of patients being hospitalized for chronic forms of heart disease.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifiers: 12610000221055, 12608000022369, 12607000069459.