Citations

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly diagnosed early, close to its first occurrence due to: (i) increased public awareness with self-screening; (ii) health care initiatives including population screening and opportunistic case finding; and (iii) increased use and surveillance of implantable cardiac devices. At its onset, AF is often low burden, and cardiovascular co-morbidities may be absent or at an early stage. Thus, the management of recent-onset AF has become an issue of growing importance. Professional guidelines have traditionally focused on anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis, generally recommending a cautious approach to rhythm control, and priority has been given to rate control to alleviate symptoms. In recent guidelines, the importance of managing lifestyle and co-morbidities has increased. The AF-SCREEN collaboration proposes that a vigorous approach to active management of recent-onset AF may be warranted. This includes addressing co-morbidities and promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent the emergence or progression of AF and associated cardiovascular disease, as well as the initiation of active rhythm control ± anticoagulation to prevent AF-related morbidity and mortality, including stroke and heart failure (HF). Intuitively, intervention early after AF onset would be beneficial since lifestyle and co-morbidity management, plus rhythm control and anticoagulation, are important contributors to improved outcomes in patients with established AF, but robust evidence is lacking for recent-onset AF. There is a delicate balance between achieving favourable outcomes such as preventing strokes, HF and AF progression vs the complications and potential adverse effects of interventions. Given the serious long-term consequences, innovative approaches are necessary to determine the value and risks of initiating active therapy very early in the course of AF. More data are needed to guide the best management of recent-onset AF, bearing AF burden in mind. Long-term studies using large national databases linked to electronic medical records and rhythm monitoring devices offer excellent opportunities. Shorter-term studies focusing on reducing AF burden to slow AF progression and studies focusing on outcomes such as HF could be used in both randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies.

Background: Deciding to use oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is complex. For many, the decision between treatment and non-treatment requires a primary tradeoff between the risks of potential stroke and increased bleeding. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patient values and empiric stroke risk measured by CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score would influence OAC decisions. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial where eligible clinicians and patients were independently randomized to one of two decision aids (DAs) – a patient decision aid and/or an encounter decision aid. Eligible patients were adults with AF with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Patients newly prescribed (OAC-naive subgroup) or already taking OAC (OAC-experienced subgroup) were included. We assessed patient values using a 5-point Likert scale between stroke prevention and bleeding risk after SDM during a clinical encounter. We report preliminary results using descriptive statistics and adjusted analysis to investigate the effects of CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and expressed values on OAC use. Results: 1005 patients were included in the analysis. 828 (82%) patients valued stroke prevention over bleeding risk. Among the OAC-naive group, 175 (63%) valued stroke prevention more than bleed avoidance, 58 (20%) valued bleed avoidance more than stroke prevention, and 47 (17%) were neutral. In the unadjusted analysis, patients were more likely to value stroke prevention if they were OAC-experienced (p<0.001), older (p<0.001), female (p< 0.001), had patient-reported bleeding (p=0.003), or if CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥ 2 if male, ≥3 if female (p<0.001) Table 1 . After adjustments, there were significant associations for OAC use among patients who valued stroke prevention (OR 5.35, 95%CI 3.13-9.13, p<0.001) or had higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (OR 2.03, 95%CI 1.26-3.27, p=0.004). Patients who valued bleed avoidance had an opposing association not to use OAC (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.11-0.48, p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients with elevated risk (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, age, and female), and those who reported a prior bleeding event valued stroke prevention more than bleeding avoidance. Both empiric stroke risk and patient values were associated with the decision to use OAC. While the tradeoff between stroke prevention and bleeding risk is only one aspect of the decision-making process, these results indicate variability in patient values may influence OAC use.

Introduction: It is unknown how comorbid diagnoses affect patients’ disease-specific knowledge or how patients’ health literacy or numeracy affects this relationship. In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), comorbidities can be quantified by the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score. We explore the association of AF/stroke knowledge with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, health literacy, and numeracy for usual care participants in the multi-center Randomized Evaluation of Decision Support Interventions for Atrial Fibrillation (RED-AF) trial evaluating decision aids to initiate (initiation cohort) or continue (monitor cohort) oral anticoagulation (OAC) in AF patients. Methods: This study was conducted at six academic medical centers in the United States. Participants were aged ≥18, diagnosed with non-valvular AF, and at risk for stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥1 for men, ≥2 for women). Patient demographics were obtained via questionnaires after a baseline clinical encounter; knowledge was evaluated by patient responses to 7 questions about OAC and AF. Health literacy was measured by a validated self-reported screening tool; numeracy by a validated subjective numeracy scale; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc was calculated from medical records. We applied generalized estimating equations for a binomial outcome to jointly relate patient knowledge to CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, health literacy and numeracy, controlling for 5 additional patient factors and accounting for clustering by clinician. Results: We report on 306 patients randomized to the usual care group across six participating sites. Average age 68.7 9, 61.6% male, mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 2 1.5. Patient knowledge was independently associated with numeracy (5% higher odds of correct response per 1 unit increase in numeracy, 95% CI 0-10%, p=0.05) and membership in the monitor cohort (40% odds of correct response, 4-89%, p=0.03) but not health literacy or increased stroke risk. Conclusion: In the RED-AF study , although health literacy and increasing stroke risk were not independently associated with patient knowledge about AF, numeracy had a minimal positive association. Those already on OAC had greater disease knowledge than patients newly starting OAC. These results suggest a need to broadly increase patient education regardless of baseline comorbidity burden and degree of health literacy. Future studies should be performed to better understand other factors that drive patient knowledge regarding AF and stroke.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multiple decision aid strategies in promoting high quality shared decision making for prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Design Cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting Six academic medical centers in the United States. Participants Patient participants were aged ≥18 with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation, at risk for stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥1 for men, ≥2 for women), and scheduled for a clinical appointment to discuss stroke prevention strategies. Participating clinicians were those who manage stroke prevention strategies for participating patients. Intervention Patients were randomized to use a patient decision aid or usual care; clinicians were randomized to use an encounter decision aid or usual care with all participating patients. Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures were quality of shared decision making measured by OPTION12, knowledge of atrial fibrillation and its management, and decisional conflict. Results 1117 participants across six sites were included in the analysis. Compared with usual care, the combined use of both the patient decision aid and the encounter decision aid improved the quality of shared decision making (adjusted mean difference 12.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.2; P<0.001), improved patients’ knowledge (odds ratio 1.68 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.09; P<0.001), and reduced patients’ decisional conflict (adjusted mean difference −6.3 (95% CI −9.6 to −3.1; P<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also observed with the encounter decision aid alone versus usual care for all three outcomes and with the patient decision aid alone versus usual care for quality of shared decision making and knowledge. No important differences were observed in treatment choices for stroke prevention or in participants’ satisfaction. No statistically significant difference in the length of visit across study groups was detected. Conclusion Patients who received any decision aid (encounter decision aid, patient decision aid, or both) had lower decisional conflict, better shared decision making, and greater knowledge than those receiving no decision aid, except for the effect of the patient decision aid on decisional conflict, which did not reach statistical significance. The study establishes that use of either pre-visit or in-visit decision aids individually or in combination is advantageous compared with usual care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04357288 .

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) making decisions regarding anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Decision support tools (e.g., Decision Aids [DAs]) facilitate SDM. However, little research has compared the effectiveness of the two most common types of DAs: (1) encounter decision aid (EDA) and (2) pre-encounter patient decision aid (PDA). Our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of PDAs and EDAs on SDM during AF clinical encounters where stroke prevention strategies were discussed. Research Question: Do decision aids (PDA or EDA), alone or in combination, improve patients’ AF decision-making experience compared to usual care? Methods: A cluster randomized multi-center trial in patients with AF comparing usual care (no DA) vs. one DA (EDA or PDA) or both DAs. Clinicians and patients were randomized independently into 4 study arms. Clinicians were randomized to use or not use the EDA for all study visits, and patients were randomized to use or not use the PDA. Co-primary outcome domains were: (1) quality of SDM (2) patient knowledge, and (3) decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes included: (1) treatment choice, (2) treatment initiation, and (3) treatment persistence. Patient characteristics were assessed. We will present comparisons of the randomized DAs on the co-primary and secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses. Results: Between December 2020-July 2023, investigators in 6 U.S. healthcare systems enrolled 1117 patients (mean (M) age 69, 63% male, 89% White) and 107 clinicians. Compared to usual care (no DA, M=31.6), SDM was better in patients receiving PDA (M=35.4) and EDA (44.5) alone or together (M=43.7; p’s<0.001). Knowledge about AF was greatest for those receiving both DAs or the PDA alone (84% accurate responses for PDA and both vs 76% with no DA, p<0.001), followed closely by the EDA alone (82%, p=0.003). Finally, both DAs (M=19.5) and EDA alone (M=20.0) had better decisional conflict scores compared to usual care (M=25.8; p’s<0.001). We will present analyses that assess the impact of DAs on secondary outcomes and interactions with DA, patient, and clinical characteristics across each outcome. Conclusions: In one of the first randomized trials examining the comparative effectiveness of EDAs and PDAs on SDM in clinical medicine, both PDAs and EDAs improved shared decision-making, decisional conflict, and knowledge compared to patients receiving usual care.

Introduction Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before. Design Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews. Results User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA. Limitations These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology. Conclusions Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them. Highlights First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately. User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids. Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

The field of cardiac electrophysiology has been on the cutting edge of advanced digital technologies for many years. More recently, medical device development through traditional clinical trials has been supplemented by direct to consumer products with advancement of wearables and health care apps. The rapid growth of innovation along with the mega-data generated has created challenges and opportunities. This review summarizes the regulatory landscape, applications to clinical practice, opportunities for virtual clinical trials, the use of artificial intelligence to streamline and interpret data, and integration into the electronic medical records and medical practice. Preparation of the new generation of physicians, guidance and promotion by professional societies, and advancement of research in the interpretation and application of big data and the impact of digital technologies on health outcomes will help to advance the adoption and the future of digital health care.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in medicine are currently areas of intense exploration, showing potential to automate human tasks and even perform tasks beyond human capabilities. Literacy and understanding of AI/ML methods are becoming increasingly important to researchers and clinicians. The first objective of this review is to provide the novice reader with literacy of AI/ML methods and provide a foundation for how one might conduct an ML study. We provide a technical overview of some of the most commonly used terms, techniques, and challenges in AI/ML studies, with reference to recent studies in cardiac electrophysiology to illustrate key points. The second objective of this review is to use examples from recent literature to discuss how AI and ML are changing clinical practice and research in cardiac electrophysiology, with emphasis on disease detection and diagnosis, prediction of patient outcomes, and novel characterization of disease. The final objective is to highlight important considerations and challenges for appropriate validation, adoption, and deployment of AI technologies into clinical practice.