Physician Estimates and Patient-Reported Health Status in Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

A primary objective in managing atrial fibrillation (AF) is to optimize patients' health status, which can be done only if physicians accurately quantify the outcomes associated with AF in patients' lives. To explore physicians' estimation of the health status of patients with AF and its association with subsequent care and outcomes. A multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted in 2 outpatient practices in Tokyo, Japan. Participants included patients with newly diagnosed AF or those referred for initial treatment of AF at outpatient practices and treating physicians from November 8, 2018, to April 1, 2020. Data analysis was performed from December 22, 2022, to July 7, 2023. Participating patients completed the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire, a 20-item tool covering 4 domains with a 7-point Likert scale; 3 domains (symptoms, daily activities, and treatment concerns) were used in this study. Blinded to patients' responses, treating physicians answered a 3-item questionnaire quantifying each patient's AFEQT domain with a single item. Patients' mean Likert scale responses within each AFEQT domain were subtracted from the physicians' assessments so that higher scores (≥0.5 points) indicate physician underestimation, while lower scores (≤0.5 points) indicate physician overestimation of the health status of patients with AF. The independent association of physician-patient concordance with treatment escalation (alteration or initiation of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or catheter ablation) and 1-year adjusted changes in AFEQT scores. Among 330 patients (238 [72.1%] men; mean [SD] age, 67.9 [11.9] years; 163 [49.4%] with paroxysmal AF), physicians correctly estimated health status in 112 patients (33.9%), underestimated it in 42 patients (12.7%), and overestimated it in 176 patients (53.3%). Treatment escalation occurred in 63.6% of patients whose health status was correctly estimated, 47.6% of those whose health status was underestimated, and 66.3% of patients whose health status was overestimated. After multivariable adjustment, underestimation of health status was independently associated with less treatment escalation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90) and less frequent AFEQT overall summary score improvement at 1 year (underestimated, 2.5 [95% CI, -1.6 to 6.7] vs correctly and overestimated health status, 8.4 [95% CI, 7.0-9.9] points; P = .01). In this cohort study, physician underestimation of the health status of patients with AF was common and associated with less aggressive treatment and less health status improvement at 1 year.