The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2018
The Effect of Cardiac Rehabilitation and a Specialized Clinic on Outcomes of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alharbi Mousa, Giacomantonio Nicholas, Carter Lindsey, Sapp John, Gardner Martin, Gray Chris J, AbdelWahab Amir M, Parkash Ratika
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) intervention programs are currently not part of management in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to determine the effect of CR compared with a specialized AF clinic (AFC) and usual care on outcomes in patients with AF.
METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study that was carried out using 3 databases: the Hearts in Motion database (2010-2014), prospectively collected data in an AFC (2011-2014), and a retrospective chart review for patients in usual care (2009-2012). Three care pathways were compared: (1) CR; (2) AFC; and (3) usual specialist-based care. The main outcome was AF-related emergency department visits and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
RESULTS: Of 566 patients with newly diagnosed AF, 133 (23.5%) patients underwent CR, 197 patients (34.8%) attended the AFC, whereas the remaining 236 (41.7%) were followed in a usual specialist-based care clinic. At 1 year, AF-related emergency department visits and cardiovascular hospitalization rates occurred in 7.5% in the CR group, 16.8% in the AFC group, and 29.2% in usual care. After a propensity matched analysis, usual care was associated with the highest rate of the main outcome (odds ratio, 4.91; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-11.53) compared with CR, as did the AFC compared with CR (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF, CR was associated with a lower risk of AF-related outcomes. These findings support further study of the use of CR in the management of these patients to determine the optimal model of care for AF patients.
METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study that was carried out using 3 databases: the Hearts in Motion database (2010-2014), prospectively collected data in an AFC (2011-2014), and a retrospective chart review for patients in usual care (2009-2012). Three care pathways were compared: (1) CR; (2) AFC; and (3) usual specialist-based care. The main outcome was AF-related emergency department visits and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
RESULTS: Of 566 patients with newly diagnosed AF, 133 (23.5%) patients underwent CR, 197 patients (34.8%) attended the AFC, whereas the remaining 236 (41.7%) were followed in a usual specialist-based care clinic. At 1 year, AF-related emergency department visits and cardiovascular hospitalization rates occurred in 7.5% in the CR group, 16.8% in the AFC group, and 29.2% in usual care. After a propensity matched analysis, usual care was associated with the highest rate of the main outcome (odds ratio, 4.91; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-11.53) compared with CR, as did the AFC compared with CR (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF, CR was associated with a lower risk of AF-related outcomes. These findings support further study of the use of CR in the management of these patients to determine the optimal model of care for AF patients.