OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often first detected in the emergency department (ED). Not all AF patients progress to sustained AF (ie, episodes lasting >7 days), which is associated with increased morbidity. The HATCH score stratifies patients with paroxysmal AF according to their risk for progression to sustained AF within 1 year. The HATCH score has previously never been tested in ED patients. We evaluated the accuracy of the HATCH score to predict progression to sustained AF within 1 year of initial AF diagnosis in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 253 ED patients with new onset AF and known rhythm status for 1 year following the initial AF detection. The exposure variable was the HATCH score at initial ED evaluation. The primary outcome was rhythm status at 1 year following initial AF diagnosis. We constructed a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculated the area under the curve to estimate the HATCH score's accuracy of predicting progression to sustained AF. RESULTS: Overall, 61 (24%) of 253 of patients progressed to sustained AF within 1 year of initial detection, and the HATCH score receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with new onset AF, the HATCH score was a modest predictor of progression to sustained AF. Because only 2 patients had a HATCH greater than 5, this previously recommended cut-point was not useful in identifying high-risk patients in this cohort. Refinement of this decision aid is needed to improve its prognostic accuracy in the ED population.
OBJECTIVES:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often first detected in the emergency department (ED). Not all AFpatients progress to sustained AF (ie, episodes lasting >7 days), which is associated with increased morbidity. The HATCH score stratifies patients with paroxysmal AF according to their risk for progression to sustained AF within 1 year. The HATCH score has previously never been tested in ED patients. We evaluated the accuracy of the HATCH score to predict progression to sustained AF within 1 year of initial AF diagnosis in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 253 ED patients with new onset AF and known rhythm status for 1 year following the initial AF detection. The exposure variable was the HATCH score at initial ED evaluation. The primary outcome was rhythm status at 1 year following initial AF diagnosis. We constructed a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculated the area under the curve to estimate the HATCH score's accuracy of predicting progression to sustained AF. RESULTS: Overall, 61 (24%) of 253 of patients progressed to sustained AF within 1 year of initial detection, and the HATCH score receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with new onset AF, the HATCH score was a modest predictor of progression to sustained AF. Because only 2 patients had a HATCH greater than 5, this previously recommended cut-point was not useful in identifying high-risk patients in this cohort. Refinement of this decision aid is needed to improve its prognostic accuracy in the ED population.
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Elsayed Z Soliman; Paul D Sorlie; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frank Xavier Scheuermeyer; Eric Grafstein; Rob Stenstrom; Grant Innes; Claire Heslop; Jan MacPhee; Reza Pourvali; Brett Heilbron; Lorraine McGrath; Jim Christenson Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Tatjana S Potpara; Goran R Stankovic; Branko D Beleslin; Marija M Polovina; Jelena M Marinkovic; Miodrag C Ostojic; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Chest Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Martin G Larson; Daniel Levy; Ramachandran S Vasan; Eric P Leip; Philip A Wolf; Ralph B D'Agostino; Joanne M Murabito; William B Kannel; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-05-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brian F Gage; Carl van Walraven; Lesly Pearce; Robert G Hart; Peter J Koudstaal; B S P Boode; Palle Petersen Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vincenzo Livio Malavasi; Elisa Fantecchi; Virginia Tordoni; Laura Melara; Andrea Barbieri; Marco Vitolo; Gregory Y H Lip; Giuseppe Boriani Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Sung Il Im; Kwang Jin Chun; Seung-Jung Park; Kyoung-Min Park; June Soo Kim; Young Keun On Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Willemijn F B van der Does; Annejet Heida; Lisette J M E van der Does; Ad J J C Bogers; Natasja M S de Groot Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 4.241