Key result
Nurse-led care reduces composite cardiovascular events ~18% vs. usual care in atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Recent guidelines emphasize multidisciplinary teams to improve outcomes in AF management, but the impact of nurse-led interventional programs on clinical outcomes remains to be systematically compared.
Does a nurse-led interventional program improve clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,916)
Does a nurse-led interventional program improve clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Relative Risk: 0.82 (95% CI 0.7–0.96)
p-value: p=0.01
A nurse-led interventional program for patients with atrial fibrillation significantly reduces composite endpoints, heart failure, AF recurrence, and readmissions, though it does not significantly impact mortality, stroke, or bleeding.
Supports nurse-led programs to reduce composite CV events in AF; strengthens meta-analytic evidence for integrated care models.
BACKGROUND: Being the most common type of arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation (AF) is progressively increasing with an annual rate of 5 million new cases. Recent guidelines highlight the importance of using collaborative multidisciplinary teams in order to improve outcomes during management of patients with AF. A nurse-led program including a nurse-directed education, counselling and intervention has shown to improve patients' outcomes in candidates with AF. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the clinical outcomes observed in patients with AF who were assigned to a nurse-led interventional program versus a usual care group. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , Web of Science; Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were the data sources. The clinical outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this study. This is a meta-analysis, and the statistical analysis was conducted by the RevMan software (version 5.4). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data after statistical analysis. RESULTS: Six studies with a total number 2916 participants were included whereby 1434 participants were assigned to a nurse-led intervention and 1482 participants were assigned to the usual care group. Our results showed that participants with AF who were assigned to the nurse-led interventional group had a significantly lower risk of composite endpoints (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96; P = 0.01), heart failure (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.92; P = 0.02), atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94; P = 0.01) and re-admission (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; P = 0.04). However, the risks of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.68-1.09; P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.33-1.39; P = 0.28), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.35-1.42; P = 0.33), stroke (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.44-1.26; P = 0.28), all bleeding events (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.81-1.53; P = 0.51) and major bleeding events (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.56-1.49; P = 0.71) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse-led interventional program significantly improved composite endpoints including heart failure and the recurrence of AF, resulting in a significantly lower admission rate compared to the usual care group. However, nurse-led interventional program did not affect mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and bleeding events. Based on our current results, a nurse-led interventional programs apparently could be beneficial in patients with AF. Future larger trials would be able to confirm this hypothesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=2,916). Nurse-led interventional program vs. Usual care was evaluated on Composite endpoints (heart failure, mortality, cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding events) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, p=0.01). A nurse-led interventional program significantly reduced the risk of composite cardiovascular endpoints (RR 0.82) compared to usual care in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: