ArticleCJEM2022
Effect of specialist consultation on emergency department revisits among patients with uncomplicated recent-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter.
Article in CJEM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the association between specialist consultation and risk of 30-day ED revisit in emergency department (ED) patients with recent-onset uncomplicated atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL).
methodsAs a secondary analysis of a previously published trial, clinical experts identified predictors of consultation including age and sex, ED sinus conversion, thromboembolic risk, heart rate, rate control medication use, coronary artery disease and anti-platelet use, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These were included in a propensity-matched hierarchical Bayesian model accounting for hospital site as a random effect, with 30-day ED revisit as the primary outcome. We also measured ED length of stay for consulted and non-consulted patients.
resultsWe analyzed data from 11 sites for 829 ED patients with AF/AFL, of whom 364 (44%) had specialist consultation. A total of 128 patients (15.4%) had an ED revisit, 78 (16.8%) from the no consult group and 50 (13.7%) from the consult group. Consultation rates ranged from 8.8 to 71% between sites. Median length of stay was 591 min (interquartile range [IQR] 359-1024) for consulted patients and 300 min (IQR 212-409) for patients without consultation. After propensity-matching, consulted patients had a 0.6% (IQR - 4 to 3%) lower risk of 30-day revisits than non-consulted patients (probability of lower risk 55%).
conclusionsIn ED patients with uncomplicated AF/AFL, there was substantial between-site variation in specialist consultations; such consultation was unlikely to influence revisits within 30 days while ED length of stay was nearly double. ED specialist consultations may not be necessary for uncomplicated patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36136242What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.