Key result
Implementation of a novel ED algorithm for atrial fibrillation significantly decreased hospital admissions compared to pre-implementation (67.4% vs 80.4%; OR 3.4; p<0.001) without increasing ED returns.
Why the study?
Does an algorithm focused on lenient oral rate control and discharge home reduce hospital admissions in patients presenting to the ED with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,108)
No
Does an algorithm focused on lenient oral rate control and discharge home reduce hospital admissions in patients presenting to the ED with atrial fibrillation?
Odds Ratio: 3.4
Absolute Event Rate: 67.4% vs 80.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
Implementing an ED algorithm for lenient oral rate control in low-risk AFib patients significantly reduces hospital admissions without increasing short-term ED return rates.
May support ED AF algorithms to reduce admissions; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is the most common dysrhythmia in the United States. Patients seen in the emergency department (ED) in rapid AFib are often started on intravenous rate-controlling agents and admitted for several days. Although underlying and triggering illnesses must be addressed, AFib, intrinsically, is rarely life-threatening and can often be safely managed in an outpatient setting. At our academic community hospital, we implemented an algorithm to decrease hospital admissions for individuals presenting with a primary diagnosis of AFib. We focused on lenient oral rate control and discharge home. Our study evaluates outcomes after implementation of this algorithm. METHODS: Study design is a retrospective cohort analysis pre- and postimplementation of the algorithm. The primary outcome was hospital admissions. Secondary outcomes were 3- and 30-day ED visits and any associated hospital admissions. These outcomes were compared before (March 2013-February 2014) and after (March 2015-February 2016) implementation. Chi-square tests and logistic regressions were run to test for significant changes in the three outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 1,108 individuals met inclusion criteria with 586 patients in the preimplementation group and 522 in the postimplementation group. Cohorts were broadly comparable in terms of demographics and health histories. Admissions for persons presenting with AFib after implementation decreased significantly (80.4% pre vs. 67.4% post, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.4, p < 0.001). Despite this difference there was no change in ED return rates within 3 or 30 days (adjusted ORs = 0.93 and 0.89, p = 0.91 and 0.73, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a novel algorithm to identify and treat low-risk patients with AFib can significantly decrease the rate of hospital admissions without increased ED returns. This simple algorithm could be adopted by other community hospitals and help lower costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeMeester et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,108). Novel algorithm for lenient oral rate control and discharge home vs. Pre-implementation period was evaluated on Hospital admissions (OR 3.4, p=<0.001). Implementation of a novel ED algorithm for atrial fibrillation significantly decreased hospital admissions compared to pre-implementation (67.4% vs 80.4%; OR 3.4; p<0.001) without increasing ED returns.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: