Inglis Sally, McLennan Skye, Dawson Anna, Birchmore Libby, Horowitz John D, Wilkinson David, Stewart Simon
Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):118-27. doi: 10.1097/00005082-200403000-00006.
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common chronic cardiac dysrhythmia, is an important cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the potential benefits of optimizing the postdischarge management of patients with chronic AF.
To examine the effects of a nurse-led, multidisciplinary, home-based intervention (HBI) on the pattern of recurrent hospitalization and mortality in patients with chronic AF in the presence and absence of chronic heart failure (HF). PATIENT COHORT AND METHODS: Health outcomes in a total of 152 hospitalized patients (53% male) with a mean age of 73 +/- 9 years and a diagnosis of chronic AF who were randomly allocated to either HBI (n = 68) or usual postdischarge care (UC: n = 84) were examined. Specifically, the pattern of unplanned hospitalization and all-cause mortality during 5-year follow-up were compared on the basis of the presence (n = 87) and absence (n = 65) of HF at baseline.
Patients with concurrent HF exposed to HBI (n = 37) had fewer readmissions (2.9 vs 3.4/patient), days of associated hospital stay (22.7 vs 30.5: P = NS) and fatal events (51 % vs 66%) relative to UC (n = 50): P = NS for all comparisons. In the absence of HF, morbidity and mortality rates were significantly lower but still substantial during 5-year follow-up. In these patients, HBI was associated with a trend towards prolonged event-free survival (adjusted RR = 0.70; P = .12) and fewer fatal events (29% vs 53%, adjusted RR = 0.49; P = .08). HBI patients (n = 31) also had fewer readmissions (2.1 vs 2.6/patient) and days of associated hospital stay (16.3 vs 20.3/patient), although this did not reach statistical significance. On the basis of these data, it was calculated that a randomized study of an AF-specific HBI would require 250 patients followed for a median of 3 years to detect a 25% variation in recurrent hospital stay relative to UC.
These unique data provide sufficient preliminary evidence to support the hypothesis that the benefits of HBI in relation to the management of HF may extend to "high risk" patients with chronic AF in whom morbidity and mortality rates are also unacceptably high. Further, appropriately powered studies are required to confirm these benefits.
心房颤动(AF)是最常见的慢性心律失常,是心血管疾病发病和死亡的重要原因。然而,关于优化慢性房颤患者出院后管理的潜在益处的研究较少。
探讨由护士主导的多学科家庭干预(HBI)对合并或不合并慢性心力衰竭(HF)的慢性房颤患者再住院模式和死亡率的影响。
共纳入152例平均年龄为73±9岁、诊断为慢性房颤的住院患者(53%为男性),将其随机分为HBI组(n = 68)或常规出院后护理组(UC组:n = 84),比较两组的健康结局。具体而言,根据基线时是否存在HF(HF组n = 87,非HF组n = 65),比较5年随访期间的非计划住院模式和全因死亡率。
与UC组(n = 50)相比,接受HBI的合并HF患者(n = 37)再次入院次数较少(2.9次/患者 vs 3.4次/患者),相关住院天数较少(22.7天 vs 30.5天:P = 无统计学意义),致命事件发生率较低(51% vs 66%):所有比较P值均无统计学意义。在无HF的患者中,5年随访期间发病率和死亡率显著较低,但仍然较高。在这些患者中,HBI与无事件生存期延长趋势相关(调整后RR = 0.70;P = 0.12),致命事件较少(29% vs 53%,调整后RR = 0.49;P = 0.08)。HBI组患者(n = 31)再次入院次数也较少(2.1次/患者 vs 2.6次/患者),相关住院天数较少(16.3天/患者 vs 20.3天/患者),尽管未达到统计学意义。根据这些数据计算,一项针对房颤特异性HBI的随机研究需要250例患者,中位随访3年,以检测相对于UC组再住院率25%的差异。
这些独特的数据提供了充分的初步证据,支持以下假设:HBI在HF管理方面的益处可能扩展到发病率和死亡率也高得不可接受的“高危”慢性房颤患者。此外,需要有足够样本量的研究来证实这些益处。