Kathryn A Wood1, Angel H Barnes2. 1. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary patient-centered approach using evidence-based care is recommended in recent atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines to achieve quality patient outcomes. Professional society guidelines are conflicting and vague in recommendations on timing of follow-up after AF ablation. PURPOSE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to examine whether the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation affected patient outcomes. METHODS: A 2-year, longitudinal, pilot study to explore patient experiences during the first 6 months following an AF ablation was conducted. Patients completed surveys and phone interviews before ablation, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the ablation. Pearson correlations and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used for comparison of outcomes over time. RESULTS: The sample (N = 20) had a mean age of 65 (± 7) years, was 55% female, 35% paroxysmal AF, and 65% persistent AF pre-ablation. Timing of follow-up visits following AF ablation varied widely. Patients reported many concerns and difficulties reflecting the lack of knowledge and unrealistic expectations of post-ablation recovery. Better outcomes were noted in those who were seen at 1-week post-ablation by a nurse practitioner (NP) compared with those who were not seen until 1 or 3 months after ablation by a physician. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Atrial fibrillation ablation is routinely performed in the United States, yet there seems to be a lack of standardization concerning the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation. These preliminary findings support a standardized approach to include an NP visit at one week after AF ablation to achieve quality AF patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary patient-centered approach using evidence-based care is recommended in recent atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines to achieve quality patient outcomes. Professional society guidelines are conflicting and vague in recommendations on timing of follow-up after AF ablation. PURPOSE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to examine whether the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation affected patient outcomes. METHODS: A 2-year, longitudinal, pilot study to explore patient experiences during the first 6 months following an AF ablation was conducted. Patients completed surveys and phone interviews before ablation, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the ablation. Pearson correlations and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used for comparison of outcomes over time. RESULTS: The sample (N = 20) had a mean age of 65 (± 7) years, was 55% female, 35% paroxysmal AF, and 65% persistent AF pre-ablation. Timing of follow-up visits following AF ablation varied widely. Patients reported many concerns and difficulties reflecting the lack of knowledge and unrealistic expectations of post-ablation recovery. Better outcomes were noted in those who were seen at 1-week post-ablation by a nurse practitioner (NP) compared with those who were not seen until 1 or 3 months after ablation by a physician. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Atrial fibrillation ablation is routinely performed in the United States, yet there seems to be a lack of standardization concerning the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation. These preliminary findings support a standardized approach to include an NP visit at one week after AF ablation to achieve quality AF patient outcomes.
Authors: Paul Dorian; Suzan S Cvitkovic; Charles R Kerr; Eugene Crystal; Anne M Gillis; Peter G Guerra; L Brent Mitchell; Denis Roy; Allan C Skanes; D George Wyse Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Stephan Willems; Paul Khairy; Jason G Andrade; Boris A Hoffmann; Sylvie Levesque; Atul Verma; Rukshen Weerasooriya; Paul Novak; Thomas Arentz; Isabel Deisenhofer; Thomas Rostock; Daniel Steven; Lena Rivard; Peter G Guerra; Katia Dyrda; Blandine Mondesert; Marc Dubuc; Bernard Thibault; Mario Talajic; Denis Roy; Stanley Nattel; Laurent Macle Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2016-08
Authors: Kathryn A Wood; Anita L Stewart; Barbara J Drew; Melvin M Scheinman; Erika S Froëlicher Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 2.210