Anna Björkenheim1, Axel Brandes2, Anders Magnuson3, Alexander Chemnitz2, Lena Svedberg4, Nils Edvardsson5, Dritan Poçi4. 1. Department of Cardiology, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. Electronic address: anna.bjorkenheim@regionorebrolan.se. 2. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 4. Department of Cardiology, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 5. Sahlgrenska Academy at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Matthias Daniel Zink; Winnie Chua; Stef Zeemering; Luigi di Biase; Bayes de Luna Antoni; Callans David; Gerhard Hindricks; Karl Georg Haeusler; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Jonathan P Piccini; Lluís Mont; Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Luis Alberto Escobar; Joseph de Bono; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Tom de Potter; Daniel Scherr; Sakis Themistoclakis; Derick Todd; Paulus Kirchhof; Ulrich Schotten Journal: Europace Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Maria Ferre-Vallverdu; Carmen Ligero; Rafael Vidal-Perez; Antoni Martinez-Rubio; Xavier Vinolas; Josep M Alegret Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Ulla Walfridsson; Anders Hassel Jönsson; Lars O Karlsson; Ioan Liuba; Henrik Almroth; Emma Sandgren; Håkan Walfridsson; Emmanouil Charitakis Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Allan Bohm; Lubos Urban; Lubomira Tothova; Ljuba Bacharova; Peter Musil; Jan Kyselovic; Peter Michalek; Tomas Uher; Branislav Bezak; Peter Olejnik; Robert Hatala Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Anna Björkenheim; Axel Brandes; Anders Magnuson; Alexander Chemnitz; Nils Edvardsson; Dritan Poçi Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 5.501