Premium
Patient‐reported outcomes and subsequent management in atrial fibrillation clinical practice: Results from the Utah mEVAL AF program
Author(s) -
Zenger Brian,
Zhang Mingyuan,
Lyons Ann,
Bunch T. Jared,
Fang James C.,
Freedman Roger A.,
Navaravong Leenhapong,
Piccini Jonathan P.,
Ranjan Ravi,
Spertus John A.,
Stehlik Josef,
Turner Jeffrey L.,
Greene Tom,
Hess Rachel,
Steinberg Benjamin A.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.14795
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , quality of life (healthcare) , clinical practice , heart failure , depression (economics) , cardiology , physical therapy , nursing , economics , macroeconomics
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) significantly reduces health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), previously measured in clinical trials using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). We examined AF PROs in clinical practice and their association with subsequent clinical management. Methods The Utah My Evaluation (mEVAL) program collects the Toronto AF Symptom Severity Scale (AFSS) in AF outpatients at the University of Utah. Baseline factors associated with worse AF symptom score (range 0–35, higher is worse) were identified in univariate and multivariable analyses. Secondary outcomes included AF burden and AF healthcare utilization. We also compared subsequent clinical management at 6 months between patients with better versus worse AF HRQoL. Results Overall, 1338 patients completed the AFSS symptom score, which varied by sex (mean 7.26 for males vs. 10.27 for females; p < .001), age (<65, 9.73; 65–74, 7.66; ≥75, 7.58; p < .001), heart failure (9.39 with HF vs. 7.67 without; p < .001), and prior ablation (7.28 with prior ablation vs. 8.84; p < .001). In multivariable analysis, younger age (mean difference 2.92 for <65 vs. ≥75; p < .001), female sex (mean difference 2.57; p < .001), pulmonary disease (mean difference 1.88; p < .001), and depression (mean difference 2.46; p < .001) were associated with higher scores. At 6‐months, worse baseline symptom score was associated with the use of rhythm control (37.1% vs. 24.5%; p < .001). Similar cofactors and results were associated with increased AF burden and health care utilization scores. Conclusions AF PROs in clinical practice identify highly‐symptomatic patients, corroborating findings in more controlled, clinical trials. Increased AFSS score correlates with more aggressive clinical management, supporting the utility of disease‐specific PROs guiding clinical practice.