nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 11.01.2023 | Im - Original

Efficacy of mobile health-technology integrated care based on the ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway in relation to sex: a report from the mAFA-II randomized clinical trial

verfasst von: Yutao Guo, Bernadette Corica, Giulio Francesco Romiti, Marco Proietti, Hui Zhang, Gregory Y. H. Lip, the mAFApp II trial investigators

Erschienen in: Internal and Emergency Medicine | Ausgabe 2/2023

Abstract

The Mobile Health Technology for Improved Screening and Optimized Integrated Care in AF (mAFA-II) cluster-randomized trial showed that a mobile health (mHealth)-implemented ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach reduced the risk of adverse events in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Whether this benefit can be applied to both males and females is unclear, especially given the suboptimal management and poorer cardiovascular outcomes in females with AF. In this post-hoc analysis, we performed a sex-stratified analysis of the mAFA-II trial. Between June 2018 and August 2019, adult AF patients were enrolled across 40 centers in China. The primary outcome was the composite of stroke, thromboembolism, all-cause death, and re-hospitalization. The effect of mAFA intervention according to sex was evaluated through adjusted Cox-regression models. Among the 3,324 patients enrolled in the trial, 2,062 (62.0%) patients were males (mean age: 67.5 ± 14.3 years; 1,021 allocated to mAFA intervention) and 1,262 (38.0%) were females (mean age: 70.2 ± 13.0; 625 allocated to mAFA intervention). A significant risk reduction of the primary composite outcome in patients allocated to mAFA intervention was observed in both males (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 [0.17–0.52]) and females (aHR [95%CI] 0.50 [0.27–0.92]), without statistically significant interaction (p = 0.225). Sex-based interactions were observed for other secondary outcomes, including all-cause death (p = 0.026) and bleeding events (p = 0.032). A mHealth-technology implemented ABC pathway was similarly effective in reducing the risk of adverse clinical events both in male and female patients. Secondary outcomes showed greater benefits of mAFA intervention in men.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-03188-2.

Joint first authors Yutao Guo and Bernadette Corica.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common atrial arrhythmia worldwide and is projected to affect 14 million patients in 2060 in Europe alone [1, 2]. Several characteristics influence the epidemiology and natural history of AF; among these, sex is one of the most investigated, with men showing a higher prevalence of AF [3], and women experiencing worse AF-related prognosis [4‐6]. The higher thromboembolic risk of women is also reflected by the inclusion of female sex as a risk modifier in the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, used to stratify thromboembolic risk in AF patients [4, 7, 8]

Female AF patients also show a higher burden of AF-related symptoms and a lower quality of life compared to males [9, 10]. Several reasons can explain this, including the lower adoption of rhythm control strategies in females [7], which influences the burden of symptoms reported.

The ‘Atrial Fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway has been proposed to streamline the implementation of a holistic and integrated care program and improve the prognosis of AF patients, based on three pillars [11]: A, anticoagulation/avoiding stroke; B, better symptom control, and C, optimization of cardiovascular comorbidities, including lifestyle changes. The ABC pathway has been already associated with the reduction of major outcomes in AF patients [12], and is currently recommended as a patient-centered approach by international guidelines [13, 14].

The Mobile Health Technology for Improved Screening and Optimized Integrated Care in AF (mAFA-II) trial evaluated the efficacy of a mobile health (mHealth)-implemented ABC pathway approach (mAFA intervention) in reducing the risk of adverse outcomes among AF patients [15, 16]. The primary analysis showed that mAFA intervention, compared to usual care, reduced the risk of the composite outcomes of ischemic stroke (IS) and systemic thromboembolism (TE), all-cause death, and re-hospitalization [15].

Nevertheless, it is unclear if the effect of mAFA intervention is consistent in both sexes; moreover, the importance of reporting sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific analyses in medical research has been repeatedly underlined, to improve our understanding of sex-based differences and ultimately lead to tailored and effective strategies in both females and males [17, 18]. In this post hoc ancillary analysis, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the mAFA intervention in male and female patients with AF, through a sex-stratified analysis of the mAFA-II trial.

Methods

A detailed description of the rationale, design, and primary results of the mAFA-II trial has been previously published and can be found elsewhere [15, 16]. In brief, the mAFA-II trial was a prospective, cluster-randomized multi-center trial that enrolled adults with AF (≥ 18 years old) across 40 centers in China, that were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the mAFA intervention or usual care. Patients with mechanical prosthetic valves, those with moderate-to-severe mitral stenosis, and those unable to complete 1 year of follow-up for any reason were excluded. Between June 2018 and August 2019, 1,646 subjects with AF were allocated to mAFA intervention, while 1,678 AF patients were allocated to usual care. The study was approved by the Central Medical Ethic Committee of Chinese PLA General Hospital and by local institutional review boards, and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline; all the patients gave their written informed consent.

In this post hoc ancillary analysis, we evaluated the effect of mAFA intervention according to the sex of the participants.

mAFA intervention

The mAFA intervention group implemented the ABC pathway according to the following criteria:

‘A’ criterion: anticoagulation prescription according to regular assessment of thromboembolic and bleeding risk, with dose adjustment based on renal and liver function reassessment;
‘B’ criterion: regular monitoring of patient-reported symptoms (which were assessed according to the European Heart Rhythm Association classification), and management of symptoms that included antiarrhythmics and rhythm control treatments;
‘C’ criterion: active management and treatment optimization of concurrent comorbidities (e.g., hypertension management according to blood pressure monitoring, statin treatment in patients with vascular diseases, etc.). Patients were also provided with educational material and lifestyle recommendations.

Conversely, patients allocated to “usual care” were managed according to local practices.

Outcomes and follow-up

Follow-up was performed 6 and 12 months after the inclusion. Consistent with the primary trial analysis, the primary endpoint was the composite outcome of IS or systemic TE, all-cause death, and re-hospitalization. Other endpoints investigated were TE (defining as IS or other systemic TE), bleeding events (intracranial and/or extracranial), cardiovascular outcomes (recurrent AF, heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome), all-cause death, and re-hospitalization.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were reported as mean and standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed continuous variables, or median and interquartile range [IQR] for non-normally distributed continuous variables. Binary and categorical variables were reported as frequency and percentage.

For the purpose of this analysis, we analyzed the interactions between sex and the effect of mAFA intervention on the primary and secondary outcomes, using Cox proportional hazard models. All the models were adjusted for age, type of AF, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, CAD, history of HF, history of IS, peripheral artery disease (PAD)), previous AF treatments, and cluster effect. Survival curves were also reported for the risk of the primary composite outcome according to mAFA allocation and sex.

A two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using R 4.2.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2020, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Overall, 3,324 patients were enrolled in the mAFA-II trial (Fig. 1); of these, 2,062 (62.0%) were males (mean age ± SD: 67.5 ± 14.3), while 1,262 (38.0%) were females (mean age ± SD: 70.2 ± 13.0). Among males, 1,021 (49.5%) were allocated to mAFA intervention, while 625 females (49.5%) were allocated to mAFA intervention.

Baseline characteristics according to mAFA allocation and sex are reported in Table 1. Compared to the usual care group, male patients in the mAFA intervention were younger and had a lower burden of comorbidities (prior IS, coronary artery disease (CAD), PAD, and prior brain bleeding); among females, those allocated to the mAFA intervention showed a higher prevalence of several comorbidities (HF, prior IS, PAD, and pulmonary hypertension) compared to the control group. Patients in the mAFA intervention were more likely to have received pharmacological cardioversion in both sexes compared to usual care. Treatments prescribed at the time of the enrollment are reported according to sex and allocation in Supplementary Materials, Table S1. In both sexes, patients allocated to mAFA intervention were more frequently treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (p < 0.001) and less likely to receive antiplatelet drugs.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics

	Males			Females
Variables, n (%)	mAFA (n = 1021)	Usual care (n = 1041)	p	mAFA (n = 625)	Usual care (n = 637)	p
Age, mean ± SD	65.2 ± 15.1	69.7 ± 13.2	< 0.001	69.7 ± 13.4	70.8 ± 12.5	0.119
Current smoking	140 (13.7)	143 (13.7)	1.000	19 (3.0)	25 (3.9)	0.482
Hypertension	530 (51.9)	576 (55.3)	0.130	378 (60.5)	386 (60.6)	1.000
CAD	373 (36.5)	447 (42.9)	0.003	262 (41.9)	277 (43.5)	0.614
Diabetes mellitus	220 (21.5)	231 (22.2)	0.764	161 (25.8)	135 (21.2)	0.065
HF at baseline	198 (19.4)	231 (22.2)	0.131	162 (25.9)	123 (19.3)	0.006
Prior ischemic stroke	90 (8.8)	182 (17.5)	< 0.001	101 (16.2)	50 (7.8)	< 0.001
PAD	89 (8.7)	121 (11.6)	0.035	83 (13.3)	51 (8.0)	0.003
Renal dysfunction	93 (9.1)	121 (11.6)	0.072	45 (7.2)	51 (8.0)	0.664
Pulmonary hypertension	32 (3.1)	50 (4.8)	0.068	55 (8.8)	33 (5.2)	0.016
Liver dysfunction	36 (3.5)	34 (3.3)	0.838	19 (3.0)	14 (2.2)	0.447
Prior thromboembolism	36 (3.5)	43 (4.1)	0.548	18 (2.9)	16 (2.5)	0.818
Prior brain bleeding	14 (1.4)	31 (3.0)	0.019	10 (1.6)	7 (1.1)	0.598
Prior other bleeding	29 (2.8)	44 (4.2)	0.113	25 (4.0)	23 (3.6)	0.830
Dilated cardiomyopathy	31 (3.0)	50 (4.8)	0.051	13 (2.1)	11 (1.7)	0.800
Hyperthyroidism	23 (2.3)	28 (2.7)	0.619	14 (2.2)	23 (3.6)	0.202
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy	17 (1.7)	23 (2.2)	0.461	8 (1.3)	6 (0.9)	0.761
Type of AF			< 0.001			< 0.001
Unknown	175 (17.2)	64 (6.2)		106 (17.2)	49 (7.7)
New-onset AF	119 (11.7)	150 (14.4)		76 (12.3)	82 (12.9)
Paroxysmal AF	419 (41.2)	403 (38.8)		254 (41.2)	257 (40.3)
Persistent AF	247 (24.3)	290 (27.9)		133 (21.6)	158 (24.8)
Long-standing AF	33 (3.2)	61 (5.9)		23 (3.7)	40 (6.3)
Permanent AF	23 (2.3)	72 (6.9)		25 (4.1)	51 (8.0)
Prior AF treatment
Pharmacological cardioversion	127 (12.4)	99 (9.5)	0.040	86 (13.8)	56 (8.8)	0.007
Electrical cardioversion	16 (1.6)	28 (2.7)	0.107	14 (2.2)	7 (1.1)	0.172
AF ablation	114 (11.2)	107 (10.3)	0.562	69 (11.0)	66 (10.4)	0.765
Pacemaker	47 (4.6)	59 (5.7)	0.320	29 (4.6)	26 (4.1)	0.728
LAAO	13 (1.3)	25 (2.4)	0.082	20 (3.2)	5 (0.8)	0.004
Scores
CHA₂DS₂-VASc, median [IQR]	2 [1–3]	2 [1–3]	0.045	3 [3–4]	3 [2–4]	< 0.001
HAS-BLED, median [IQR]	1 [0–2]	1 [1–2]	< 0.001	2 [1–2]	1 [1, 2]	0.122

CAD coronary artery disease, HF heart failure, IQR interquartile range, LAAO left atrial appendage occlusion, PAD peripheral artery disease, SD standard deviation; p values <0.05 are reported in bold.

Risk of major outcomes according to mAFA intervention

Survival curves for the primary composite outcome according to sex and mAFA allocation are reported in Fig. 2, while the results of the analysis on the interaction between sex and the effect of mAFA intervention on the risk of primary and secondary outcomes are reported in Fig. 3. Both male and female patients allocated to mAFA intervention showed a reduced risk of the primary composite outcome of IS/TE, all-cause death and re-hospitalization (aHR [95%CI] 0.30 [0.17–0.52] and 0.50 [0.27–0.92] for males and females, respectively), with no significant sex-based interaction (p_int = 0.225). Among the exploratory secondary outcomes, a statistically significant sex-based interaction was observed for the all-cause death (p_int = 0.026), bleeding events (p_int = 0.032) and the composite outcome of recurrent AF, heart failure, and ACS (p_int = 0.003); for all these outcomes, the effect of mAFA intervention in reducing the risk of the events was higher in male patients. No statistically significant interaction was observed for the risk of thromboembolism and re-hospitalizations alone.

Discussion

In this ancillary analysis of the mAFA-II trial, our principal findings are as follows: (i) the mAFA intervention reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome of IS, TE, all-cause death, and re-hospitalization in both sexes; (ii) the magnitude of the risk reduction appeared higher among males; and (iii) a sex-based interaction was observed for some of the exploratory secondary outcomes, including all-cause death and bleeding events, with the effect of mAFA intervention being higher among male patients.

There has been growing interest in the potential sex-based differences in AF patients, from the pathophysiology and the accumulation of risk factors to the risk of adverse outcomes, including stroke [6, 19, 20]. Notwithstanding the under-representation of women in clinical trials [21], female AF patients experience a significant burden of symptoms [22, 23] and worse prognosis [6, 24], while also being often undertreated in clinical practice [23, 25]. Therefore, females represent one key group of AF patients with an unmet need for better management and improved outcomes.

Recent international guidelines [13, 14] have underlined the need for an integrated care approach to optimize the management of AF patients, and the ABC pathway has been proposed to streamline such a holistic bundle of care [11]. While the ABC pathway has been already proven effective in improving outcomes among AF patients [12, 26, 38], previous subgroups’ analysis of retrospective studies have suggested that potential sex-based differences may exist in the efficacy of the ABC pathway, with women potentially experiencing a lower magnitude of effect [27].

In this post hoc analysis from the mAFA-II trial, we showed how a mHealth-technology implemented ABC pathway consistently reduces the risk of the primary composite outcome of IS/TE, all-cause death, and re-hospitalizations in both sexes, without a statistically significant sex-based interaction. Nevertheless, we observed a trend toward a higher magnitude of risk reduction among male patients, and this finding was consistent with the analysis of the exploratory secondary outcomes, which showed a sex-based interaction for the effect of the ABC pathway on the risk of all-cause death, bleeding events, and the composite of non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes.

Several hypotheses may contribute to the results observed. First, in our study, male patients allocated to mAFA intervention were younger than those allocated to usual care, and with an overall lower burden of comorbidities at baseline, including CAD, PAD, and history of previous IS and bleeding events. On the other side, women allocated to mAFA showed higher prevalence of HF, PAD. and a history of IS. Taken together, while these imbalances in baseline characteristics can be explained by the cluster randomization design of the trial, they may have contributed to the higher magnitude of the effect observed among male patients compared to females allocated to mAFA intervention.

Moreover, both males and females allocated to mAFA intervention more frequently received OAC—and, specifically, NOACs—when compared to those who received usual care. The higher uptake of OAC can be seen both as a direct effect of the implementation of the mAFA intervention in these patients (with optimisation of stroke prevention as part of the mHealth-implemented ABC pathway), and one key determinants of the beneficial effects of mAFA in these patients. These findings reinforce the hypothesis that a holistic or integrated care approach improves management of AF patients, leading to better outcomes.

Nonetheless, it has already been shown that women may present with atypical symptoms of AF [28], which may contribute to challenges in the diagnosis and management; furthermore, several reports have identified female sex as being associated with less efficacy of rhythm control strategies in AF patients, including catheter ablation, and also higher rate of procedural complications [29‐32]. Taken together, these data suggest that achievement of symptoms control may be more challenging in women than in men, and this may lead to worse quality of life and, ultimately, worse prognosis.

Finally, the role of social determinants of health in influencing the natural history and outcomes in AF is increasingly recognized [33, 34], and currently represents one of the most unmet needs in the management of AF patients. The detrimental impact of socioeconomic factors on cardiovascular outcomes, especially among women, has been already established [35]; moreover, women are disproportionately affected by social disparities and social deprivation, thus leading to overall low access to health resources, low quality of life, and worse prognosis [36]. Consistently, a recent study has shown how low educational status, low income, and living alone were all associated with a lower uptake of AF ablation after an incident AF diagnosis [37], further underlying how these issues are crucial—although often overlooked—in ensuring optimal management and prognosis in AF patients. Of note, the ABC pathway is not specifically designed to target the social determinants of health, and this may contribute to the findings observed in our study, especially considering how these issues disproportionately affect women.

Overall, while confirming the efficacy of the ABC pathway in both sexes for the primary composite outcome, our findings are consistent with the previously reported trend of a potential sex-based difference in the efficacy of the ABC pathway [27]. These observations have several important clinical implications: first, the implementation of a mHealth technology-implemented ABC pathway to streamline an integrated care approach may help in reducing the health gap between male and female AF patients, otherwise wider, and therefore the implementation of this approach should be encouraged in both sexes. Notwithstanding, women may experience an attenuated effect of the ABC pathway for several reasons, including differences in the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of AF, and the higher impact of non-traditional risk factors (including social determinants of health), which require tailored strategies to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes in females. Specifically, increasing the awareness of the sex-based differences in the natural history of AF, and implementing strategies to tackle the social inequalities and barriers which may influence the access to care and prognosis of women, may represent two of the most crucial interventions that may reduce the inequalities between sexes. While the ABC pathway represents the cornerstone of treatment for AF patients, the combination of an integrated care approach with sex-tailored strategies may represent the key to further improving outcomes in AF patients, especially in females.

Strengths and limitations

Our study is the first analysis to provide a sex-stratified analysis on the efficacy of a mHealth-implemented ABC pathway, and will be particularly useful to inform sex-specific recommendations and guidance, especially given the urgent need for sex-disaggregated data in this scenario [21]. Furthermore, our results were largely consistent with the primary analysis of the trial, contributing to the reliability of our estimates.

Nonetheless, our study has some limitations. First, this was a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized trial and may lack statistical power for some of the outcomes investigated, and for the specific subgroups examined about which the trial was not originally powered. Second, there were some imbalances on the baseline characteristics in both males and females allocated to mAFA intervention vs. usual care. While this is compatible with the randomized cluster design of the trial, this may have contributed, at least partly, to the results observed. Third, we were unable to evaluate the role of the social determinants of health (SDOH) in determining the results observed. Further studies are required to evaluate the role of SDOH and the potential sex-based differences in this clinical context. Fourth, although we adjusted our analyses for several potential moderators, we cannot exclude the effect of unaccounted confounders on the findings observed.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of the mAFA-II trial, we found that a mHealth-technology implemented ABC pathway was similarly effective in reducing the risk of adverse clinical events both in male and female patients. Secondary outcomes showed greater benefits of mAFA intervention in men.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all participants in the mAFA programme for their contribution.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

GYHL has been consultant and speaker for BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. No fees are directly received personally. All the disclosures happened outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to declare.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Central Medical Ethic Committee of Chinese PLA General Hospital and by local institutional review boards, and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.

All the patients gave their written informed consent.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

e.Med Anästhesiologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Anästhesiologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes AINS, den Premium-Inhalten der AINS-Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten AINS-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ³

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Kornej J, Börschel CS, Benjamin EJ, Schnabel RB (2020) Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in the 21st century: novel methods and new insights. Circ Res 127:4–20. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.316340CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krijthe BP, Kunst A, Benjamin EJ et al (2013) Projections on the number of individuals with atrial fibrillation in the European union, from 2000 to 2060. Eur Heart J 34:2746–2751. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHT280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zhang J, Johnsen SP, Guo Y, Lip GYH (2021) Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: geographic/ecological risk factors, age, sex, genetics. Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinics 13:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CCEP.2020.10.010CrossRefPubMed

Friberg L, Benson L, Rosenqvist M, Lip GYH (2012) Assessment of female sex as a risk factor in atrial fibrillation in Sweden: nationwide retrospective cohort study. BMJ 344:e3522–e3522. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3522CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Friberg J, Scharling H, Gadsbøll N et al (2004) Comparison of the impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of stroke and cardiovascular death in women versus men (the Copenhagen city heart study). Am J Cardiol 94:889–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJCARD.2004.06.023CrossRefPubMed

Marzona I, Proietti M, Farcomeni A et al (2018) Sex differences in stroke and major adverse clinical events in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 993,600 patients. Int J Cardiol 269:182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJCARD.2018.07.044CrossRefPubMed

Dagres N, Nieuwlaat R, Vardas PE et al (2007) Gender-related differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation in Europe: a report from the Euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:572–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2006.10.047CrossRefPubMed

Lip GYH, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R et al (2010) Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest 137:263–272. https://doi.org/10.1378/CHEST.09-1584CrossRefPubMed

Brundel BJJM, Ai X, Hills MT et al (2022) Atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Dis Primers. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-022-00347-9CrossRefPubMed

10.

von Eisenhart RA, Hutt F, Baumert J et al (2015) Depressed mood amplifies heart-related symptoms in persistent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients: a longitudinal analysis—data from the German competence network on atrial fibrillation. Europace 17:1354–1362. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euv018CrossRef

11.

Lip GYH (2017) The ABC pathway: an integrated approach to improve AF management. Nat Rev Cardiol 14:627–628. https://doi.org/10.1038/NRCARDIO.2017.153CrossRefPubMed

12.

Romiti GF, Pastori D, Rivera-Caravaca JM et al (2022) Adherence to the “Atrial Fibrillation Better care” pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation: impact on clinical outcomes-a systematic review and meta-analysis of 285,000 patients. Thromb Haemost 122:406–414. https://doi.org/10.1055/A-1515-9630CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N et al (2021) 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS): the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the Europea. Eur Heart J 42:373–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAA612CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chao TF, Joung B, Takahashi Y et al (2022) Focused update consensus guidelines of the Asia Pacific heart rhythm society on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: executive summary. Thromb Haemost 122:20–47. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0041-1739411CrossRefPubMed

15.

Guo Y, Lane DA, Wang L et al (2020) Mobile health technology to improve care for patients With atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 75:1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2020.01.052CrossRefPubMed

16.

Guo Y, Lane DA, Wang L et al (2019) Mobile Health (mHealth) technology for improved screening, patient involvement and optimising integrated care in atrial fibrillation: the mAFA (mAF-App) II randomised trial. Inter J Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13352CrossRef

17.

Avery E, Clark J (2016) Sex-related reporting in randomised controlled trials in medical journals. The Lancet 388:2839–2840CrossRef

18.

(2022) Raising the bar on sex and gender reporting in research. Nature Medicine 28 (6) 1099–1099. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01860-w

19.

Kloosterman M, Crijns HJGM, Investigators for the RI et al (2020) Sex-related differences in risk factors, outcome, and quality of life in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation: results from the RACE II study. EP Europace 22:1619–1627. https://doi.org/10.1093/EUROPACE/EUZ300CrossRefPubMed

20.

Odening KE, Deiß S, Dilling-Boer D et al (2019) Mechanisms of sex differences in atrial fibrillation: role of hormones and differences in electrophysiology, structure, function, and remodelling. EP Europace 21:366–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/EUROPACE/EUY215CrossRefPubMed

21.

Alipour P, Azizi Z, Norris CM et al (2022) Representation of women in atrial fibrillation clinical practice guidelines. Can J Cardiol 38:729–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CJCA.2021.12.017CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ikemura N, Kohsaka S, Kimura T et al (2019) Assessment of sex differences in the initial symptom burden, applied treatment strategy, and quality of life in japanese patients with atrial fibrillation. JAMA Netw Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2019.1145CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Schnabel RB, Pecen L, Ojeda FM et al (2017) Gender differences in clinical presentation and 1-year outcomes in atrial fibrillation. Heart 103:1024–1030. https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2016-310406CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ko D, Rahman F, Schnabel RB et al (2016) Atrial fibrillation in women: epidemiology, pathophysiology, presentation, and prognosis. Nat Rev Cardiol 13:321–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/NRCARDIO.2016.45CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K et al (2016) Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 67:2913–2923. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2016.03.581CrossRefPubMed

26.

Proietti M, Romiti GF, Olshansky B et al (2018) Improved outcomes by integrated care of anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation using the simple abc (atrial fibrillation better care) pathway. Am J Med 131:1359-1366.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJMED.2018.06.012CrossRefPubMed

27.

Pastori D, Menichelli D, Violi F et al (2021) The atrial fibrillation better care (abc) pathway and cardiac complications in atrial fibrillation: a potential sex-based difference. the ATHERO-AF study. Eur J Intern Med 85:80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJIM.2020.12.011CrossRefPubMed

28.

Scheuermeyer FX, Mackay M, Christenson J et al. (2015) There Are sex differences in the demographics and risk profiles of emergency department (ED) patients with atrial fibrillation and flutter but no apparent differences in ED management or outcomes. Acad Emerg Med 22 (9) 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12750

29.

Elayi CS, Darrat Y, Suffredini JM et al (2018) Sex differences in complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: results on 85,977 patients. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 53:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-018-0416-1CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hermida A, Burtin J, Kubala M et al (2022) Sex differences in the outcomes of cryoablation for atrial fibrillation. Front Cardiovasc Med. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.893553CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Kuck K-H, Brugada J, Fürnkranz A, et al (2018) impact of female sex on clinical outcomes in the fire and ice trial of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.118.006204

32.

Kaiser DW, Fan J, Schmitt S et al (2016) Gender differences in clinical outcomes after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2:703–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2016.04.014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

LaRosa AR, Claxton J, O’Neal WT et al (2020) Association of household income and adverse outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation. Heart 106:1679–1685. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2019-316065CrossRefPubMed

34.

Essien UR, Kornej J, Johnson AE et al (2021) Social determinants of atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol 18:763–773. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-021-00561-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Lindley KJ, Aggarwal NR, Briller JE et al (2021) Socioeconomic determinants of health and cardiovascular outcomes in women. J Am Coll Cardiol 78:1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.011CrossRefPubMed

36.

Schultz WM, Kelli HM, Lisko JC et al (2018) Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular outcomes. Circulation 137:2166–2178. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029652CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Vinter N, Calvert P, Kronborg MB et al (2022) Social determinants of health and catheter ablation after an incident diagnosis of atrial fibrillation: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Eur Heart J Quality Care Clinical Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcac038CrossRef

38.

Romiti GF, Proietti M, Bonini N et al (2023) Adherence to the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway and the risk of major outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: A post-hoc analysis from the prospective GLORIA-AF Registry. eClinicalMedicine 55:101757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101757CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Efficacy of mobile health-technology integrated care based on the ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway in relation to sex: a report from the mAFA-II randomized clinical trial
verfasst von: Yutao Guo
Bernadette Corica
Giulio Francesco Romiti
Marco Proietti
Hui Zhang
Gregory Y. H. Lip
the mAFApp II trial investigators
Publikationsdatum: 11.01.2023
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Internal and Emergency Medicine / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 1828-0447
Elektronische ISSN: 1970-9366
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-03188-2

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren.

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

30.04.2024 Endokarditis Leitlinie kompakt

Worauf kommt es beim Management von Personen mit infektiöser Endokarditis an? Eine Kardiologin und ein Kardiologe fassen die zehn wichtigsten Punkte der neuen ESC-Leitlinie zusammen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Supplementary Information

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Methods

mAFA intervention

Outcomes and follow-up

Statistical analysis

Results

Risk of major outcomes according to mAFA intervention

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Informed consent

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

e.Med Anästhesiologie

Supplementary Information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Machine learning to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest from patients presenting to the emergency department

Awareness of sex and gender dimensions among physicians: the European federation of internal medicine assessment of gender differences in Europe (EFIM-IMAGINE) survey: comment

Remdesivir-induced bradycardia in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV2 infection: a possible vagally-mediated mechanism

Anticoagulation therapy early is safe in portal vein thrombosis patients with acute variceal bleeding: a multi-centric randomized controlled trial

The role of biopsy protocol in inflammatory bowel disease: getting the diagnosis right first time

Clinical features and outcomes of elderly hospitalised patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure or both

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

Update Innere Medizin