Key result
Direct current cardioversion significantly reduced the mean single global score of the AF6 questionnaire from 22 to 12 in clinical responders, demonstrating the instrument's responsiveness to symptom changes.
Why the study?
Does electrical cardioversion improve symptoms as measured by the AF6 questionnaire in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=111)
No
Does electrical cardioversion improve symptoms as measured by the AF6 questionnaire in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 12% vs 14%
p-value: p=<0.01
The AF6 questionnaire is a responsive, validated tool for measuring symptomatic improvement following electrical cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation.
AF6 responsiveness supports symptom tracking after cardioversion in observational data; leaves open its role in guiding AF management decisions.
OBJECTIVES: To measure the effects on symptoms of electrical cardioversion (DC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by means of a new, short, validated, AF-specific questionnaire, the AF6. METHODS: One hundred eleven patients (67 ± 12 years, 89 men) were screened before and 12 ± 3 days after DC using AF6, covering 'breathing difficulties at rest', 'breathing difficulties on exertion', 'limitations in day-to-day life due to atrial fibrillation', 'feeling of discomfort due to atrial fibrillation', 'tiredness due to atrial fibrillation', and 'worry/anxiety due to atrial fibrillation'. A single global score was calculated. The Toronto AF Symptoms and Severity Check List (AFSS) and the generic SF-36 were also administered. Patients in sinus rhythm at 12 ± 3 days (n = 56) were defined as responders and patients in AF (n = 55) as non-responders. RESULTS: The mean single global score decreased in all patients (18 ± 12.4 to 13 ± 11.6, p < 0.0001) and in responders (22 ± 14 vs. 12 ± 12, p < 0.01) but not in non-responders (14 ± 9 vs. 14 ± 11, N.S). The AFSS frequency scores decreased from 14.5 ± 7.7 to 9.5 ± 7.8 in responders, p = 0.001, but not in non-responders. There was a strong correlation between changes in the AF6 and the SF-36 regarding four of the six items. Effect sizes of AF6 ranged from 0 to 0.52 in all patients, in responders from 0.10 to 0.85 and in non-responders from -0.23 to 0.34, the highest figures consistently referring to 'tiredness due to atrial fibrillation'. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom scores measured by AF6 decreased significantly, especially in responders. AF6 demonstrated adequate responsiveness to change, and effect sizes were mostly moderate, in responders moderate to high.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Härdén et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=111). Direct current electrical cardioversion (DC) vs. Non-responders (patients remaining in or relapsing to AF) was evaluated on Mean single global score of the AF6 questionnaire at 12±3 days (p=<0.01). Direct current cardioversion significantly reduced the mean single global score of the AF6 questionnaire from 22 to 12 in clinical responders, demonstrating the instrument's responsiveness to symptom changes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: