Why the study?
To reanalyze the outcomes of the mAFA-II cluster randomized trial using the win ratio approach, prioritizing fatal events hierarchically.
Does a mHealth-technology-implemented integrated care approach reduce the composite of all-cause death, ischemic stroke or systemic thromboembolism, and rehospitalization in patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=3,324)
cluster
Does a mHealth-technology-implemented integrated care approach reduce the composite of all-cause death, ischemic stroke or systemic thromboembolism, and rehospitalization in patients with atrial fibrillation?
A mHealth-technology-implemented integrated care approach effectively reduces the risk of adverse clinical events in AF patients when analyzed using the win ratio method prioritizing fatal events.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports mHealth-enabled ABC pathway in AF; extends original RCT with win ratio prioritizing mortality.
BACKGROUND: The Mobile Health (mHealth) Technology for Improved Screening and Optimized Integrated Care in atrial fibrillation (AF) (mAFA-II) cluster randomized trial assessed the efficacy of an integrated care approach in improving the prognosis of AF patients. In this study, we provide a reanalysis of the trial outcomes using the win ratio (WR) approach. METHODS: The mAFA-II trial allocated patients to receive a mHealth-technology implemented Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway (mAFA intervention) or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, ischemic stroke or systemic thromboembolism, and rehospitalization. The efficacy of the mAFA intervention was analyzed according to the WR method using the unmatched pairs approach, with the components of the primary outcome analyzed hierarchically as follows: (1) all-cause death; (2) ischemic stroke or thromboembolism; (3) rehospitalization. Results were reported as WR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In addition, we calculated win odds (WO) and 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 3,324 patients were enrolled in the mAFA-II trial and included in this analysis (1,646 allocated to mAFA intervention and 1,678 to usual care). Among 2,761,988 unmatched pairs comparisons, the number of wins was higher in the mAFA intervention group, with a WR: 2.78 (95% CI: 1.85-4.17). WO confirmed the effect of mAFA intervention, although with a lower magnitude (WO: 1.06; 95% Cl: 1.04-1.08). CONCLUSION: In this posthoc WR analysis of the mAFA-II trial, a mHealth-technology-implemented integrated care approach was effective in reducing the risk of the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, ischemic stroke or thromboembolism, and rehospitalization, even when prioritizing fatal events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Romiti et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in atrial fibrillation (n=3,324). mHealth-technology implemented Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway vs. usual care was evaluated on composite of all-cause death, ischemic stroke or systemic thromboembolism, and rehospitalization (WR 2.78, 95% CI 1.85-4.17).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: