Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384360›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners2020

Variations in follow-up after atrial fibrillation ablation.

Kathryn A Wood, Angel H Barnes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kathryn A WoodNell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Angel H BarnesDuke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

Scholarship and Mentoring CoreP30NR014139 · NINR · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WU, BEI · 2012 to 2016
$2.3M
NINR NIH HHS P30 NR014139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA multidisciplinary patient-centered approach using evidence-based care is recommended in recent atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines to achieve quality patient outcomes. Professional society guidelines are conflicting and vague in recommendations on timing of follow-up after AF ablation. PURPOSE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to examine whether the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation affected patient outcomes.

methodsA 2-year, longitudinal, pilot study to explore patient experiences during the first 6 months following an AF ablation was conducted. Patients completed surveys and phone interviews before ablation, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the ablation. Pearson correlations and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used for comparison of outcomes over time.

resultsThe sample (N = 20) had a mean age of 65 (± 7) years, was 55% female, 35% paroxysmal AF, and 65% persistent AF pre-ablation. Timing of follow-up visits following AF ablation varied widely. Patients reported many concerns and difficulties reflecting the lack of knowledge and unrealistic expectations of post-ablation recovery. Better outcomes were noted in those who were seen at 1-week post-ablation by a nurse practitioner (NP) compared with those who were not seen until 1 or 3 months after ablation by a physician. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Atrial fibrillation ablation is routinely performed in the United States, yet there seems to be a lack of standardization concerning the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation. These preliminary findings support a standardized approach to include an NP visit at one week after AF ablation to achieve quality AF patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationCatheter AblationAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMalePilot ProjectsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32384360
PMCPMC8791660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.