Higher atrial fibrillation burden after ablation was independently associated with poorer physical component summary and AF-specific patient-reported outcomes at 24 months.
Observational (n=54)
Does AF ablation improve patient-reported outcomes as measured by generic and AF-specific instruments in relation to continuously monitored AF burden over 2 years?
The AF-specific AF6 questionnaire is more sensitive than the generic SF-36 to changes in continuously monitored AF burden after ablation, supporting its use in assessing ablation efficacy.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation improves patient-reported outcomes, irrespective of mode of intermittent rhythm monitoring. We evaluated the use of an AF-specific and a generic patient-reported outcomes instrument during continuous rhythm monitoring 2 years after AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-four patients completed the generic 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and the AF-specific AF6 questionnaires before and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. All patients underwent continuous ECG monitoring via an implantable loop recorder. The generic patient-reported outcomes scores were compared with those of a Swedish age- and sex-matched population. After ablation, both summary scores reached normative levels at 24 months, while role-physical and vitality remained lower than norms. Responders to ablation (AF burden 0.5%) reached norms only in social functioning and mental component summary. All AF6 items and the sum score showed moderate to large improvement in both responders and nonresponders, although responders showed significantly greater improvement in all items except item 1 from before to 24 months after ablation. Higher AF burden was independently associated with poorer physical component summary and AF6 sum score. CONCLUSIONS: The AF-specific AF6 questionnaire was more sensitive to changes related to AF burden than the generic 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Patients improved as documented by both instruments, but a higher AF burden after ablation was associated with poorer AF-specific patient-reported outcomes and poorer generic physical but not mental health. Our results support the use of an AF-specific instrument, alone or in combination with a generic instrument, to assess the effect of ablation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00697359.
Björkenheim et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=54). Atrial fibrillation ablation vs. Swedish age- and sex-matched population norms was evaluated on Patient-reported outcomes (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and AF6 questionnaires). Higher atrial fibrillation burden after ablation was independently associated with poorer physical component summary and AF-specific patient-reported outcomes at 24 months.