Cost Analysis of a Dedicated Outpatient Clinic in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess healthcare utilization costs of a dedicated outpatient clinic for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We conducted a registry-based retrospective study in patients with a first-time AF diagnosis from 2009 to 2011 (control group) and 2013 to 2015 (intervention group). The control group had physician-led usual care, and the intervention group received multidisciplinary care. The primary outcome was total costs of AF-related resource utilization. Exploratory outcomes were ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality. Multiple regression methods were used to control for confounders in the assessment of effects on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1552 patients were included, hereof 850 in the intervention group. Total AF-related costs were €2746 for the control group and €3154 for the intervention group, which was not statistically significant. Average outpatient costs were significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group (€522 vs €344, respectively; P = .003). There was no difference in the number of AF-related hospital admissions and outpatient visits between the control group and the intervention group (incidence risk ratio, 1.03 vs 0.85; and 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.16 vs 0.69-1.05, respectively). There was a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.16) in the intervention group, which was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Total expenses for AF-related hospital resource utilization in the intervention group were higher, but the expenses for AF-related outpatient visits were significantly lower. There was a trend toward lower all-cause mortality in the intervention group, although the differences were not statistically significant. More research is needed investigating whether a multidisciplinary AF clinic is cost-effective.

Patient-reported outcomes at hospital discharge among patients with arrhythmia: Results from the national DenHeart survey

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes are important predictors of mortality, cardiovascular events and hospitalisation in patients with cardiac diseases, but differences in patient-reported outcomes between groups of patients with arrhythmia have not yet been investigated.

AIMS

To describe and compare patient-reported outcomes at discharge among patients with different types of cardiac arrhythmia and to examine the associations between demographic characteristics, inhospital factors and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Data were derived from the national DenHeart study including patient-reported outcomes from the following questionnaires: the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), HeartQoL, short form 12 (SF-12), current health status (EQ-5D), brief illness perception questionnaire (B-IPQ) and the Edmonton symptom assessment scale (ESAS). Clinical and demographic data were obtained from national registers. Multiple linear and logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations between the potential risk factors and the patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 4251 patients diagnosed with arrhythmia completed the questionnaire. Across the arrhythmia subgroups, some differences were observed. In general, patient-reported outcome scores were worst among patients with 'ventricular arrhythmia' (e.g. highest depression scores and highest prevalence of feeling unsafe at discharge). Regression analysis revealed that longer hospital stay, female gender, being unmarried and having a short education were significantly associated with poor health for almost all arrhythmia subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Differences exist in self-reported health, quality of life and symptom burden across arrhythmia groups with patients with ventricular arrhythmia reporting poorer patient-reported outcomes. Longer hospital stay, female gender, being unmarried and having a low level of education were significantly associated with worse outcomes among the total population.

'What else can I do?': Insights from atrial fibrillation patient communication online

BACKGROUND

Many patients with atrial fibrillation experience uncertainty and psychological distress. Internet support groups for atrial fibrillation have yet to be studied.

AIM

To determine the content and dialogue on an online message board for atrial fibrillation with the purpose of elucidating information and support needs from patient perspectives.

METHODS

Interpretative description methodology was undertaken to explore conversation from a publicly available website for atrial fibrillation over a 3-month period.

RESULTS

Individuals interacted with the message board to make sense of their atrial fibrillation events by sharing experiences with medications, complementary and alternative medicine, trigger avoidance and ablation. The opinions of lay experts on the message board, anecdotal stories and hyperlinked Internet data were all highly valued sources of information in the messages. Using the learning gained from the board, individuals proceeded with strategies to treat their atrial fibrillation, often in a trial and error fashion. Throughout the process, individuals came back to the board, to update on their progress and gain assistance from others.

CONCLUSION

The studied atrial fibrillation population had unmet needs for education regarding non-pharmacological approaches to treat atrial fibrillation. In the absence of opportunity to discuss these needs with healthcare professionals, patients may be vulnerable to unproved approaches advocated by Internet peers. Further research is suggested to examine the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use in the atrial fibrillation population and to understand better how social media can be utilised to support atrial fibrillation patients.