Selder Jasper L, Mulder Mark J, van de Vijver Willem R, Croon Philip M, Wentrup Leontine E, van der Pas Stéphanie L, Twisk Jos W R, Tulevski Igor I, Van Rossum Albert C, Allaart Cornelis P
Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Dec 20;3(12):e0000688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000688. eCollection 2024 Dec.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent and clinically significant cardiac arrhythmia, with a growing incidence. The primary objectives in AF management are symptom relief, stroke risk reduction, and prevention of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Two key strategies for rhythm control include antiarrhythmic drug therapy and pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), with PVI being recommended for selected patients. Even though PVI is effective, post procedural health care utilization is high, contributing to emergency department (ED) overcrowding, which is a global healthcare concern. The use of remote rhythm diagnostics, such as a 1-lead ECG device (KM), may mitigate this issue by reducing ED visits and facilitating more plannable AF care.
This study aimed to assess whether providing AF patients with a 1-lead ECG device for 1 year after PVI would reduce ED utilization compared to standard care. Additionally, the study assessed whether this intervention would render AF care more plannable by reducing the incidence of unplanned cardioversions.
A historically controlled, prospective clinical trial was conducted. The intervention group were patients undergoing PVI for AF between September 2018 and August 2020, all patients in this group received a 1-lead ECG device for 1 year for remote rhythm monitoring. The historical control group were patients undergoing PVI between January 2016 and December 2017; these patients did not receive a 1-lead ECG device. Data on ED visits, planned and unplanned cardioversions, and outpatient contacts in the year after the PVI were collected for both groups.
The study included 204 patients, 123 in the 1-lead ECG group and 81 in the standard care group. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of all-cause ED visits (63 vs 68 per 100 pts, respectively, p = 0.72), ED visits for possible rhythm disorders, or ED visits for definite rhythm disorders between the two groups. However, the 1-lead ECG group demonstrated a higher proportion of planned cardioversions compared to unplanned ones (odds ratio 4.9 [1.57-15.85], p = 0.007).
Providing patients with AF following PVI with a 1-lead ECG device did not result in a statistically significant reduction in ED visits during the first year. However, it did improve the management of recurrent AF episodes by substituting unplanned cardioversions with scheduled ones. Clinical Trials Registration Number NCT06283654.
心房颤动(AF)是一种常见且具有临床意义的心律失常,发病率呈上升趋势。房颤管理的主要目标是缓解症状、降低中风风险以及预防心动过速性心肌病。节律控制的两个关键策略包括抗心律失常药物治疗和肺静脉隔离(PVI),对于特定患者推荐采用PVI。尽管PVI有效,但术后医疗保健利用率较高,导致急诊科(ED)过度拥挤,这是一个全球医疗保健问题。使用远程节律诊断,如单导联心电图设备(KM),可能通过减少急诊科就诊次数并促进更具计划性的房颤护理来缓解这一问题。
本研究旨在评估与标准护理相比,在PVI后为房颤患者提供单导联心电图设备1年是否会降低急诊科利用率。此外,该研究评估了这种干预措施是否会通过降低非计划性心脏复律的发生率使房颤护理更具计划性。
进行了一项历史对照的前瞻性临床试验。干预组为2018年9月至2020年8月期间接受PVI治疗房颤的患者,该组所有患者均接受单导联心电图设备进行1年的远程节律监测。历史对照组为2016年1月至2017年12月期间接受PVI治疗的患者;这些患者未接受单导联心电图设备。收集两组患者PVI后一年的急诊科就诊、计划性和非计划性心脏复律以及门诊联系的数据。
该研究纳入了204例患者,单导联心电图组123例,标准护理组81例。两组间全因急诊科就诊次数(分别为每100例患者63次和68次,p = 0.72)、因可能的节律紊乱导致的急诊科就诊次数或因明确的节律紊乱导致的急诊科就诊次数无统计学显著差异。然而,与非计划性心脏复律相比,单导联心电图组计划性心脏复律的比例更高(优势比4.9 [1.57 - 15.85],p = 0.007)。
在PVI后为房颤患者提供单导联心电图设备在第一年并未导致急诊科就诊次数有统计学显著减少。然而,它确实通过用计划性心脏复律替代非计划性心脏复律改善了复发性房颤发作的管理。临床试验注册号NCT06283654。