Key result
Automated patient-reported outcomes combined with routine follow-up significantly increased the duration of follow-up compared to routine follow-up alone (378 vs 217 days; P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes collection may be challenging and cost prohibitive, but automation may complement routine clinical follow-up after procedures like AF ablation.
Does an automated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection system improve follow-up duration and data availability compared to routine follow-up alone in patients undergoing AF ablation?
Cohort (n=2,175)
Does an automated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection system improve follow-up duration and data availability compared to routine follow-up alone in patients undergoing AF ablation?
A fully automated system for collecting patient-reported outcomes significantly enhances clinical follow-up duration and data availability in patients undergoing AF ablation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Automated PRO collection was associated with longer AF ablation follow-up; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized trials before practice change.
Background The value of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is increasingly recognized in patient-centered care. Longitudinal data collection may be challenging and cost prohibitive. Automation of PRO collection may complement routine clinical follow-up, especially for procedures aiming to improve quality of life, such as atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods We aimed to develop a fully automated platform to collect PRO and evaluate its first clinical application in a prospective cohort of AF ablation. The duration of follow-up and data availability were assessed with automated PRO and routine follow-up versus routine follow-up alone (primary outcome). Quality of life and healthcare utilization (secondary outcomes) by PRO were assessed. Results Between 2013 and 2016, 2175 patients were eligible to receive 10 903 PRO assessment invitations, and the automated platform sent all invitations as programmed. More follow-up assessments were obtained with automated PRO and routine follow-up compared with routine follow-up alone (12 859 versus 10 248; P<0.0001) which allowed longer duration of follow-up (378 versus 217 days, 74% increase; P<0.0001). By automated PRO, a large number of disease-specific variables were collected and showed improvement in quality of life (baseline median AF symptom severity score AFSSS of 12 [6-18] and ranged between 2 and 3 on subsequent assessments; P<0.0001). This improvement was also true for each of the AFSSS individual components ( P<0.0001). In PRO, there was a significant reduction in AF burden (such as frequency and duration of episodes; P<0.0001) and associated healthcare utilization (including emergency visits and hospitalizations; P<0.0001) after the ablation procedures. Conclusions A fully automated system for PRO collection enhanced clinical follow-up and allowed collection of disease-specific data when applied in a prospective cohort of AF ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hussein et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Atrial Fibrillation (n=2,175). Automated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection plus routine follow-up vs. Routine follow-up alone was evaluated on Duration of follow-up (days) (74% increase, p=<0.0001). Automated patient-reported outcomes combined with routine follow-up significantly increased the duration of follow-up compared to routine follow-up alone (378 vs 217 days; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: