Cargando…

Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation improves patient‐reported outcomes, irrespective of mode of intermittent rhythm monitoring. We evaluated the use of an AF‐specific and a generic patient‐reported outcomes instrument during continuous rhythm monitoring 2 years after AF ablation. METHODS A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Björkenheim, Anna, Brandes, Axel, Magnuson, Anders, Chemnitz, Alexander, Edvardsson, Nils, Poçi, Dritan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29478027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.008362
_version_ 1783308830735597568
author Björkenheim, Anna
Brandes, Axel
Magnuson, Anders
Chemnitz, Alexander
Edvardsson, Nils
Poçi, Dritan
author_facet Björkenheim, Anna
Brandes, Axel
Magnuson, Anders
Chemnitz, Alexander
Edvardsson, Nils
Poçi, Dritan
author_sort Björkenheim, Anna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation improves patient‐reported outcomes, irrespective of mode of intermittent rhythm monitoring. We evaluated the use of an AF‐specific and a generic patient‐reported outcomes instrument during continuous rhythm monitoring 2 years after AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty‐four patients completed the generic 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey and the AF‐specific AF6 questionnaires before and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. All patients underwent continuous ECG monitoring via an implantable loop recorder. The generic patient‐reported outcomes scores were compared with those of a Swedish age‐ and sex‐matched population. After ablation, both summary scores reached normative levels at 24 months, while role‐physical and vitality remained lower than norms. Responders to ablation (AF burden <0.5%) reached the norms in all individual 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey domains, while nonresponders (AF burden >0.5%) reached norms only in social functioning and mental component summary. All AF6 items and the sum score showed moderate to large improvement in both responders and nonresponders, although responders showed significantly greater improvement in all items except item 1 from before to 24 months after ablation. Higher AF burden was independently associated with poorer physical component summary and AF6 sum score. CONCLUSIONS: The AF‐specific AF6 questionnaire was more sensitive to changes related to AF burden than the generic 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey. Patients improved as documented by both instruments, but a higher AF burden after ablation was associated with poorer AF‐specific patient‐reported outcomes and poorer generic physical but not mental health. Our results support the use of an AF‐specific instrument, alone or in combination with a generic instrument, to assess the effect of ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00697359.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5866340
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58663402018-03-28 Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument Björkenheim, Anna Brandes, Axel Magnuson, Anders Chemnitz, Alexander Edvardsson, Nils Poçi, Dritan J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation improves patient‐reported outcomes, irrespective of mode of intermittent rhythm monitoring. We evaluated the use of an AF‐specific and a generic patient‐reported outcomes instrument during continuous rhythm monitoring 2 years after AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty‐four patients completed the generic 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey and the AF‐specific AF6 questionnaires before and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. All patients underwent continuous ECG monitoring via an implantable loop recorder. The generic patient‐reported outcomes scores were compared with those of a Swedish age‐ and sex‐matched population. After ablation, both summary scores reached normative levels at 24 months, while role‐physical and vitality remained lower than norms. Responders to ablation (AF burden <0.5%) reached the norms in all individual 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey domains, while nonresponders (AF burden >0.5%) reached norms only in social functioning and mental component summary. All AF6 items and the sum score showed moderate to large improvement in both responders and nonresponders, although responders showed significantly greater improvement in all items except item 1 from before to 24 months after ablation. Higher AF burden was independently associated with poorer physical component summary and AF6 sum score. CONCLUSIONS: The AF‐specific AF6 questionnaire was more sensitive to changes related to AF burden than the generic 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey. Patients improved as documented by both instruments, but a higher AF burden after ablation was associated with poorer AF‐specific patient‐reported outcomes and poorer generic physical but not mental health. Our results support the use of an AF‐specific instrument, alone or in combination with a generic instrument, to assess the effect of ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00697359. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5866340/ /pubmed/29478027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.008362 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Björkenheim, Anna
Brandes, Axel
Magnuson, Anders
Chemnitz, Alexander
Edvardsson, Nils
Poçi, Dritan
Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument
title Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument
title_full Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument
title_fullStr Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument
title_full_unstemmed Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument
title_short Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Relation to Continuously Monitored Rhythm Before and During 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Disease‐Specific and a Generic Instrument
title_sort patient‐reported outcomes in relation to continuously monitored rhythm before and during 2 years after atrial fibrillation ablation using a disease‐specific and a generic instrument
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29478027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.008362
work_keys_str_mv AT bjorkenheimanna patientreportedoutcomesinrelationtocontinuouslymonitoredrhythmbeforeandduring2yearsafteratrialfibrillationablationusingadiseasespecificandagenericinstrument
AT brandesaxel patientreportedoutcomesinrelationtocontinuouslymonitoredrhythmbeforeandduring2yearsafteratrialfibrillationablationusingadiseasespecificandagenericinstrument
AT magnusonanders patientreportedoutcomesinrelationtocontinuouslymonitoredrhythmbeforeandduring2yearsafteratrialfibrillationablationusingadiseasespecificandagenericinstrument
AT chemnitzalexander patientreportedoutcomesinrelationtocontinuouslymonitoredrhythmbeforeandduring2yearsafteratrialfibrillationablationusingadiseasespecificandagenericinstrument
AT edvardssonnils patientreportedoutcomesinrelationtocontinuouslymonitoredrhythmbeforeandduring2yearsafteratrialfibrillationablationusingadiseasespecificandagenericinstrument
AT pocidritan patientreportedoutcomesinrelationtocontinuouslymonitoredrhythmbeforeandduring2yearsafteratrialfibrillationablationusingadiseasespecificandagenericinstrument