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 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.

Assessment of Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptoms Before and 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Do Patients and Physicians Differ in Their Perception of Symptom Relief?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported and physician-assessed atrial fibrillation (AF)-related symptoms after AF ablation. BACKGROUND: Success of AF ablation is usually defined as freedom from AF, although symptom relief is often patients' desire. METHODS: Symptom relief was assessed as perceived by patients using the short, validated, AF-specific symptom questionnaire AF6 and as classified by physicians using the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) classification at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. Recurrence of arrhythmia was documented by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring. RESULTS: In total, 54 patients completed the 24-month follow-up. All 6 items on the AF6, AF6 sum score, and EHRA class improved significantly over time. The greatest improvement was seen during the first 6 months after ablation, but AF6 scores showed continued improvement up to 12 months, in contrast to EHRA class. There was a low correlation between AF6 score and EHRA class, but the predictive ability was low. Both AF6 scores and EHRA class were significantly correlated with AF burden at all times after ablation. A change of >9 points in AF6 sum score corresponded to a meaningful reduction in symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes were both useful in assessing symptom relief after AF ablation, although patient-reported outcomes were more sensitive tools. There was also a discrepancy between patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes after ablation. Freedom from AF and a low AF burden most often resulted in a reduction of symptoms, but symptom relief also occurred despite little effect on the arrhythmia.

Low Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of stroke. Therefore, all patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be examined with 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and continuous monitoring to detect AF. Current guidelines recommend at least 24 h continuous ECG monitoring, which is primarily based on studies investigating patients with ischemic stroke. The aim of our study was to investigate the diagnostic yield of 12-lead ECG and Holter monitoring in patients with TIA. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated all patients diagnosed with TIA at Odense University Hospital, Denmark, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. TIA was a clinical diagnosis according to the WHO definition. Patients received admission ECG and 72-hour Holter monitoring after discharge. RESULTS: 171 patients without known AF were diagnosed with TIA. Four (2.3%) were diagnosed with AF on admission ECG. Another 2 (1.2%) were diagnosed with AF on Holter monitoring. In total, 6 patients (3.5%) were diagnosed with AF. Patients with AF were significantly older (mean age 79.4 [95% CI 65.1-93.6] years) than patients without AF (mean age 67.6 [95% CI 65.6-69.5] years) but otherwise showed no difference in baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, patients with TIA had a low incidence of AF detected with ECG and 72-hour Holter monitoring. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Rhythm Control and Its Relation to Symptoms during the First Two Years after Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00697359. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rhythm control up to two years after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and its relation to reported symptoms. BACKGROUND: The implantable loop recorder (ILR) continuously records the electrocardiogram (ECG), has an automatic AF detection algorithm, and has a possibility for patients to activate an ECG recording during symptoms. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (mean age 57 ± 9 years, 60% male, 88% paroxysmal AF) underwent AF ablation following ILR implantation. Device data were downloaded at the ablation and three, six, 12, 18, and 24 months after ablation. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients completed the two-year follow-up. Thirteen (24%) patients had no AF episodes detected by ILR during follow-up. Ten of 41 patients (24%) with AF recurrence were only detected by ILR and AF recurrences were detected earlier by ILR (P < 0.001). The median AF burden in patients with AF recurrence was 5.7% (interquartile range 0.4-14.4) and was even lower in patients with AF only detected by ILR (P = 0.001). Forty-eight % of the patients indicated symptoms via the patient activator but 33% of those recordings were not due to AF. Early AF recurrence (within 3 months) was highly associated with later AF recurrence (P < 0.001). AF burden >0.5% and longest AF episode >6 hours before the ablation were independent predictors of AF recurrence during intermittent but not continuous monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: After AF ablation, the AF burden was low throughout the 24 months follow-up. Nevertheless, symptoms were commonly indicated but one-third of patient-activated recordings did not show AF. Continuous monitoring was superior to intermittent follow-up in detecting AF episodes and assessing the AF burden.