4.3 Article

Association Between Risk Factors and Readmission for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Catheter Ablation Results From the Nationwide DenHeart Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages E31-E39

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000900

Keywords

anxiety; atrial fibrillation; depression; patient-reported outcomes; readmission; risk factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to describe potential risk factors at discharge and their associations with readmission from 60 days to 1 year after discharge.
BackgroundBecause of high readmission rates for patients treated with ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), there is great value in nurses knowing which risk factors make the largest contribution to readmission.ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to (1) describe potential risk factors at discharge and (2) describe the associations of risk factors with readmission from 60 days to 1 year after discharge.MethodsData from a national cross-sectional survey exploring patient-reported outcomes were used in conjunction with data from national health registers. This study included patients who had an ablation for AF during a single calendar year. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and questions on risk factors were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected through registers, and readmissions were examined at 1 year.ResultsIn total, 929 of 1320 (response rate, 70%) eligible patients treated with ablation for AF completed the survey. One year after ablation, there were 333 (36%) acute readmissions for AF and 401 (43%) planned readmissions for AF. Readmissions were associated with ischemic heart disease, anxiety, and depression.ConclusionHigh observed readmission rates were associated with risk factors that included anxiety and depression. Postablation care should address these risk factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available