Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Amiodarone and Warfarin Use.

INTRODUCTION: The association between amiodarone treatment for postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and both the return to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) and anticoagulation use at discharge has not been extensively studied. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent biological SAVR with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (2005-2015). We reviewed new-onset POAF, amiodarone use, return to NSR, and anticoagulation use with warfarin. Discharge rhythm and warfarin administration were compared among patients with POAF who were treated with amiodarone and patients who did not receive amiodarone. RESULTS: Of the 395 patients (186 AVR/coronary artery bypass grafting; 209 AVR) studied, POAF developed in 191 patients (48.0%); 80.1% (153/191) of these patients received amiodarone. Among patients treated with amiodarone, 70.6% (108/153) were in SR at the time of discharge versus 65.8% (25/38) of POAF patients who were not treated with amiodarone (P = 0.57). Among amiodarone-treated patients, 30.7% (47/153) were discharged with warfarin; among patients not treated with amiodarone, 31.6% (12/38) were discharged with warfarin (P = 0.92). Among amiodarone-treated patients discharged in NSR, 89.9% (97/108 patients) were not discharged with warfarin; among patients not treated with amiodarone who were discharged in NSR, 92% (23/25) were not discharged with warfarin (P = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: POAF after SAVR appears common. Although amiodarone is often used for POAF patients, its use does not appear to be associated with surgeons' decision to anticoagulate patients. Surgeons' preferences for using rhythm control and antithrombotic therapy for POAF after SAVR warrant further exploration.

A Coding Framework for Usability Evaluation of Digital Health Technologies.

Several studies have reported low adherence and high resistance from clinicians to adopt digital health technologies into clinical practice, particularly the use of computer-based clinical decision support systems. Poor usability and lack of integration with the clinical workflow have been identified as primary issues. Few guidelines exist on how to analyze the collected data associated with the usability of digital health technologies. In this study, we aimed to develop a coding framework for the systematic evaluation of users' feedback generated during focus groups and interview sessions with clinicians, underpinned by fundamental usability principles and design components. This codebook also included a coding category to capture the user's clinical role associated with each specific piece of feedback, providing a better understanding of role-specific challenges and perspectives, as well as the level of shared understanding across the multiple clinical roles. Furthermore, a voting system was created to quantitatively inform modifications of the digital system based on usability data. As a use case, we applied this method to an electronic cognitive aid designed to improve coordination and communication in the cardiac operating room, showing that this framework is feasible and useful not only to better understand suboptimal usability aspects, but also to recommend relevant modifications in the design and development of the system from different perspectives, including clinical, technical, and usability teams. The framework described herein may be applied in other highly complex clinical settings, in which digital health systems may play an important role in improving patient care and enhancing patient safety.