ArticleCJEM2024
Assessment of physician compliance to the CAEP 2021 Atrial Fibrillation Best Practices Checklist for rate and rhythm control in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAcute atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF/AFL) are common arrhythmias treated in the emergency department (ED). The 2021 CAEP Best Practices Checklist provides clear recommendations for management of patients with acute AF/AFL. This study aimed to evaluate physician compliance to Checklist recommendations for risk assessment and ED management of AF/AFL.
methodsThis health records review assessed the management of adult patients presenting to two tertiary care EDs for management of acute AF/AFL from January to August, 2022. All ECGs demonstrating AF/AFL with a heart rate greater than 100 were compiled to capture primary and secondary causes. All visits were assessed for rate and rhythm control management, adverse events, return to ED, and safety criteria. Study physicians classified safety criteria from the Checklist into high and moderate concerns. The primary outcome was the proportion of cases with safety concerns and adverse events occurring during management in the ED. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics.
resultsWe included 429 patients with a mean age of 67.7 years and 57.1% male. ED management included rate control (20.4%), electrical (40.1%), and pharmacological (20.1%) cardioversion. Adverse events occurred in 9.5% of cases: 12.5% in rate control, 13.4% in electrical cardioversion, and 6.9% in pharmacologic cardioversion. Overall, 7.9% of cases had management safety concerns. Moderate safety concerns occurred in 4.9% of cases including failure to attain recommended heart rate at time of discharge (3.9%). Severe concerns were identified in 3.0% of cases including failure to cardiovert unstable patients (1.2%). The 30-day return-to-ED rate was 16.5% secondary to AF/AFL.
conclusionED management of AF/AFL was consistent with the CAEP Checklist and was safe overall. Opportunities for optimizing care include attaining recommended targets during rate control, avoidance of calcium channel and beta blockers in patients with systolic dysfunction, and earlier cardioversion for clinically unstable patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38519830What 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.