Cardioversion strategy impacts rate control during recurrences in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the RACE 7 ACWAS trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7-Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See, patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomized to either early or delayed cardioversion. AIM: This prespecified sub-analysis aimed to evaluate heart rate during AF recurrences after an emergency department (ED) visit identified by an electrocardiogram (ECG)-based handheld device. METHODS: After the ED visit, included patients (n = 437) were asked to use an ECG-based handheld device to monitor for recurrences during the 4-week follow-up period. 335 patients used the handheld device and were included in this analysis. Recordings from the device were collected and assessed for heart rhythm and rate. Optimal rate control was defined as a target resting heart rate of <110 beats per minute (bpm). RESULTS: In 99 patients (29.6%, mean age 67 ± 10 years, 39.4% female, median 6 [3-12] AF recordings) a total of 314 AF recurrences (median 2 [1-3] per patient) were identified during follow-up. The average median resting heart rate at recurrence was 100 ± 21 bpm in the delayed vs 112 ± 25 bpm in the early cardioversion group (p = .011). Optimal rate control was seen in 68.4% [21.3%-100%] and 33.3% [0%-77.5%] of recordings (p = .01), respectively. Randomization group [coefficient -12.09 (-20.55 to -3.63, p = .006) for delayed vs. early cardioversion] and heart rate on index ECG [coefficient 0.46 (0.29-0.63, p < .001) per bpm increase] were identified on multivariable analysis as factors associated with lower median heart rate during AF recurrences. CONCLUSION: A delayed cardioversion strategy translated into a favorable heart rate profile during AF recurrences.

Mobile health adherence for the detection of recurrent recent-onset atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: The Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7-Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See trial compared early to delayed cardioversion for patients with recent-onset symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aims to evaluate the adherence to a 4-week mobile health (mHealth) prescription to detect AF recurrences after an emergency department visit. METHODS: After the emergency department visit, the 437 included patients, irrespective of randomisation arm (early or delayed cardioversion), were asked to record heart rate and rhythm for 1 min three times daily and in case of symptoms by an electrocardiography-based handheld device for 4 weeks (if available). Adherence was appraised as number of performed measurements per number of recordings asked from the patient and was evaluated for longitudinal adherence consistency. All patients who used the handheld device were included in this subanalysis. RESULTS: 335 patients (58% males; median age 67 (IQR 11) years) were included. The median overall adherence of all patients was 83.3% (IQR 29.9%). The median number of monitoring days was 27 out of 27 (IQR 5), whereas the median number of full monitoring days was 16 out of 27 (IQR 14). Higher age and a previous paroxysm of AF were identified as multivariable adjusted factors associated with adherence. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised trial, a 4-week mHealth prescription to monitor for AF recurrences after an emergency department visit for recent-onset AF was feasible with 85.7% of patients consistently using the device with at least one measurement per day. Older patients were more adherent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02248753.

Early or Delayed Cardioversion in Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation commonly undergo immediate restoration of sinus rhythm by pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion. However, whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary is not known, since atrial fibrillation often terminates spontaneously. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with hemodynamically stable, recent-onset (<36 hours), symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department to be treated with a wait-and-see approach (delayed-cardioversion group) or early cardioversion. The wait-and-see approach involved initial treatment with rate-control medication only and delayed cardioversion if the atrial fibrillation did not resolve within 48 hours. The primary end point was the presence of sinus rhythm at 4 weeks. Noninferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference in the primary end point in percentage points was more than -10. RESULTS: The presence of sinus rhythm at 4 weeks occurred in 193 of 212 patients (91%) in the delayed-cardioversion group and in 202 of 215 (94%) in the early-cardioversion group (between-group difference, -2.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.2 to 2.2; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). In the delayed-cardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm within 48 hours occurred spontaneously in 150 of 218 patients (69%) and after delayed cardioversion in 61 patients (28%). In the early-cardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred spontaneously before the initiation of cardioversion in 36 of 219 patients (16%) and after cardioversion in 171 patients (78%). Among the patients who completed remote monitoring during 4 weeks of follow-up, a recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 49 of 164 patients (30%) in the delayed-cardioversion group and in 50 of 171 (29%) in the early-cardioversion group. Within 4 weeks after randomization, cardiovascular complications occurred in 10 patients and 8 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting to the emergency department with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation, a wait-and-see approach was noninferior to early cardioversion in achieving a return to sinus rhythm at 4 weeks. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; RACE 7 ACWAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02248753.).

Effect of Using the HEART Score in Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01756846). SETTING: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. MEASUREMENTS: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. LIMITATION: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. CONCLUSION: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Does the Use of a Decision Aid Improve Decision Making in Prosthetic Heart Valve Selection? A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: A Dutch online patient decision aid to support prosthetic heart valve selection was recently developed. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess whether use of the patient decision aid results in optimization of shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a 5-center randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to receive either standard preoperative care (control group) or additional access to the patient decision aid (intervention group). Legally capable adult patients accepted for elective isolated or combined aortic and mitral valve replacement were included. Primary outcome was preoperative decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale); secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement in valve selection, anxiety and depression, (valve-specific) quality of life, and regret. Out of 306 eligible patients, 155 were randomized (78 control and 77 intervention). Preoperative decisional conflict did not differ between the groups (34% versus 33%; P=0.834). Intervention patients felt better informed (median Decisional Conflict Scale informed subscore: 8 versus 17; P=0.046) and had a better knowledge of prosthetic valves (85% versus 68%; P=0.004). Intervention patients experienced less anxiety and depression (median Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score: 6 versus 9; P=0.015) and better mental well-being (mean Short Form Health Survey score: 54 versus 50; P=0.032). Three months postoperatively, valve-specific quality of life and regret did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A patient decision aid to support shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection does not lower decisional conflict. It does result in more knowledgeable, better informed, and less anxious and depressed patients, with a better mental well-being. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nl. Unique identifier: NTR4350.

Referral to a Commercial Weight Management Program in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A PILOT STUDY IN THE NETHERLANDS.

PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of a commercial weight management program on weight change in obese patients with coronary heart disease. METHODS: An observational, single-center pilot study in the Netherlands. Forty-five patients diagnosed with a recent acute coronary syndrome and a body mass index of >30 kg/m2 were recruited. The commercial weight management intervention (Weight Watchers) promotes a hypoenergetic and balanced diet, increased physical activity, and group support. The program included weekly 30-minute in-hospital meetings with an experienced coach. The program was offered in parallel with a cardiac rehabilitation program. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients completed the program. Of these patients, 32 patients (91%) decreased body weight. Mean weight change was -5.8 kg (range: +0.6 kg to -15.4 kg), and 20 patients (57%) achieved the target of 5% weight loss of their initial weight. Twenty-seven patients continued the commercial weight loss program after 14 weeks, the mean followup of these patients was 34 weeks and their mean weight change was -9.1 kg (range: 0.0-23.0 kg). CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients, discharged after an acute coronary syndrome, who were referred to a commercial weight management program, achieved significant weight loss. Although this is a nonrandomized pilot study with patients who were selected by motivation and by the ability to participate in the program, the proportion of weight loss is significant and promising.