Impact of cardiology follow-up care on treatment and outcomes of patients with new atrial fibrillation discharged from the emergency department

Aims The first presentation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is often to an emergency department (ED). We evaluated the association of subsequent specialist care with morbidity and mortality. Methods and results Retrospective cohort study of all adults in Alberta, Canada, with a new primary diagnosis of AF treated and released during an index ED visit between 2009 and 2015. Types of physician follow-up within 3 months of ED visit was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying covariates. Outcomes were evaluated at 1 year. Of 7986 patients, 476 (6.0%) had no physician follow-up within 3 months, whereas 2730 (34.2%) attended a non-specialist only, 1277 (16.0%) an internal medicine specialist, and 3503 (43.9%) cardiology. An increasing gradient of cardiac investigations occurred across these groups. Cardiology compared with non-cardiologist care was associated with approximately two-fold greater electrophysiology interventions and revascularization, and increased use of beta-blockers (48.9% vs. 43.0%, P < 0.0001), statins (31.4% vs. 26.7%, P < 0.0001), and oral anticoagulation in patients with CHADS2 scores ≥1 (53.7% vs. 43.6%, P < 0.0001). In the subsequent year, cardiology care was associated with fewer deaths [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.93], strokes (aHR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37–0.96), or major bleeds (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.89). No differences in the risk of hospitalization or ED visits were associated with cardiology care. Conclusion Cardiology care after an ED visit for symptomatic new-onset AF is associated with better prognosis. The benefit may be mediated through more intensive investigation, identification, and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and disease.