Transitions in Atrial Fibrillation Care: A Systematic Review

Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Pathway in the Emergency Department Reduces Median 30-Day Health Service Charges

BACKGROUND

The economic burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) continues to increase. AF treatment pathways have been shown to reduce avoidable admissions, but the effects on health care costs are not understood. This study sought to assess the impact of an AF treatment pathway on health service charges and emergency department (ED) discharge rates.

METHODS

An AF treatment pathway was implemented at 7 hospital EDs in North Carolina between 2017 and 2020. Thirty-day health service charges were calculated for ED visits, hospitalizations, and outpatient clinic appointments. A quasi-experimental design was used to assess changes in health service charges and ED discharge rates following implementation of the AF treatment pathway. Adjusted quantile and negative binomial regressions were used to analyze changes in median 30-day health service charges and discharge rates from the ED, respectively.

RESULTS

Among 12 504 patients that met eligibility for study inclusion (preperiod: n=3893; postperiod: n=8611), implementation of the AF treatment pathway significantly reduced 30-day health service charges (preperiod: $11 922; postperiod: $9219; P<0.001). In adjusted models, implementation of the AF treatment pathway was associated with an $834 decrease in median 30-day health service charges (95% CI, -$1630 to $-37; P=0.04). Additionally, the adjusted predicted probability of ED discharge increased from 65.3% to 70.0% after the AF treatment pathway implementation, a 4.7 percentage point increase (95% CI, 1.4-8.0; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an AF treatment pathway in the ED was associated with a decrease in median 30-day health service charges and an increase in ED discharge rate for patients presenting with AF.

BARRIERS TO GUIDELINE-DIRECTED ANTICOAGULATION IN PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION NEW APPROACHES TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Optimising guideline-directed anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation remains a perennial problem despite strong evidence for improved health outcomes with use of guideline-directed anticoagulation. Efforts to improve uptake have been hampered by barriers found at the level of the physician, patient, disease and choices of therapy. Clinician judgement is often clouded by factors such as therapeutic inertia, aversion to bleeding risk and implicit bias. For patients, negative pre-conceptions of therapy, impact of therapy on day-to-day life and the nocebo effect pose significant barriers. Both groups are impacted by poor education. Utility of a single pronged approach directed towards clinicians or patients have demonstrated variable success, with the highest impact appreciated in studies employing shared decision models. Further, there is emerging evidence for use of integrated models of care, which have shown improved efficacy in improving patient outcomes, as well as use of digital platforms such as mobile app-based interventions, which can be of aid to the clinician in improving patient adherence to anticoagulation with translated improved outcomes in clinical trials. Our narrative review article aims to investigate the physician and health system, patient, as well as drug therapy and disease barriers to uptake of guideline-directed anticoagulation in treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Bridging Care Transition After Hospitalization for Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Interventions

ABSTRACT

Treatment fragmentation between hospitals and the community can result in catastrophic outcomes; uninterrupted treatment with anticoagulant and platelet aggregation inhibitors is particularly important. We assessed the proportion and characteristics of patients who did not visit their primary community-based physician within 1 week of discharge from our department of cardiovascular medicine and the proportion that failed to procure essential drugs at the community pharmacy. We prospectively studied 423 patients who were discharged from our department. They were provided detailed explanations, tablets for 7 days, prescriptions, and a printed drug plan. We traced the time from discharge until a visit with a primary community-based physician, and the time until the procurement of medications, using our computerized community-hospital-integrated system. Complete data were available for 313 patients, of whom 220 were treated with anticoagulants or platelet aggregation inhibitors. For 175 patients, these drugs were initiated during index hospitalizations. Only 1 patient did not receive platelet aggregation inhibitors despite recommendations. Seventy-nine patients (25%) first visited their primary care physicians more than 1 week after discharge. Predictors for delayed visits were living alone (hazard ratio 1.91) and having an in-house caregiver (hazard ratio 2.01). In conclusion, all but 1 patient continued drug therapy after discharge from the hospital. The simple predischarge steps included patient education and provision of a 1-week supply of tablets and prescriptions. Treatment continuation was independent of visits to the community-based primary physician. Patients living alone or with an in-house caregiver more often delayed visits to primary physicians yet continued relevant drug therapy.