The efficacy and safety of a nurse-led electrical cardioversion service for atrial fibrillation over a two-year time period. (29th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Purkayastha, P; Ibrahim, A; Haslen, D; Gamma, R
• Is Part Of: European journal of cardiovascular nursing. Volume 20(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-07-29
• Subjects: Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Nursing -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular Diseases -- nursing -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; Vascular Diseases -- Periodicals; 610.7369105
• DOI: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab060.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1474-5151

Abstract

Abstract: Funding Acknowledgements: Type of funding sources: None. Background & Purpose Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia worldwide, with a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and utilisation of healthcare resources. Electrical direct-current cardioversion (DCCV) is offered to patients with ongoing symptoms despite medical management. In this study we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a specialised nurse-led DCCV cardioversion service. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study analysing the outcome of patients presenting with atrial fibrillation or flutter, who were subsequently referred for a nurse-led DCCV procedure between August 2017 and December 2019. Results: Analysis included a total of 341 patients (mean age = 68.37; STDV = 10.96) who presented with either atrial fibrillation (N = 267; 78.30%) or atrial flutter (N = 74; 21.70%). Approximately 30% of patients were female (N = 101); and 70% were male (N = 240). Of the 341 patients who underwent DCCV, 299 were successfully cardioverted (87.68%), whilst 42 patients remained in AF (12.32%). Of those patients successfully cardioverted, 167 remained in sinus rhythm after 6 weeks (55.85%); 93 patients reverted back to AF (31.10%). 38 patients were lost to follow up (12.71%). Of all 341 patients who underwent DCCV, only 24 patients were admitted to hospital during the subsequent 3 month period (7.04%). Of these admissions, 11 were due to persistent AF (45.83%), and 13 were due to other non-related reasons (54.17%). Importantly, no patients were admitted as a direct complication of the DCCV procedure. Using a Chi-squared analysis, we found a significant difference in cardioversion success rates between patients presenting with atrial flutter (97% success rate) versus those in atrial fibrillation (85% success rate) (χ2 = 8.089; p = 0.004; α<0.05). We did not find a significant difference in cardioversion success rates between males and females (χ2 = 1.651; p = 0.199; α<0.05); nor did we witness a significant impact from the presence of ischaemic heart disease (χ2 = 1.545; p = 0.214; α<0.05) or hypertension (χ2 = 2.075; p = 0.150; α<0.05). Similarly, we found negligible impact of LV ejection fraction (χ2 = 1.494; p = 0.684; α<0.05) or LA size (χ2 = 1.310; p = 0.727; α<0.05) upon cardioversion success rates. We witnessed a dramatic improvement in DC cardioversion success rates in patients taking antiarrhythmic medication in preference to a rate control strategy alone (χ2 = 11.825; p = 0.008; α<0.05). Conclusion: Overall, data gathered from this study provides positive evidence to support the use of a nurse-led DCCV service. In addition to obtaining very successful cardioversion rates, we found low remission rates, with a very low hospital readmission rate for AF related issues after successful DCCV.