An International View of How Recent‐onset Atrial Fibrillation Is Treated in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to determine if there is practice variation for emergency physicians' (EPs) management of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (RAF) in various world regions (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Australasia). METHODS: The authors completed a mail and e-mail survey of members from four national emergency medicine (EM) associations. One prenotification letter and three survey letters were sent to members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP; Canada-1,177 members surveyed), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP; United States-500), College of Emergency Medicine UK (CEM; United Kingdom-1,864), and Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM; Australasia-1,188) as per the modified Dillman technique. The survey contained 23 questions related to the management of adult patients with symptomatic RAF (either a first episode or paroxysmal-recurrent) where onset is less than 48 hours and cardioversion is considered a treatment option. Data were analyzed using descriptive and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: Response rates were as follows: overall, 40.5%; Canada, 43.0%; United States, 50.1%; United Kingdom, 38.1%; and Australasia, 38.0%. Physician demographics were as follows: 72% male and mean (±SD) age 41.7 (±8.39) years. The proportions of physicians attempting rate control as their initial strategy are United States, 94.0%; Canada, 70.7%; Australasia, 61.1%; and United Kingdom, 43.1% (p < 0.0001). Diltiazem is the predominant agent for rate control in Canada (65.36%) and the United States (95.22%), while metoprolol is used in Australasia (65.94%) and the United Kingdom (67.64%). Cardioversion is attempted at varying rates in Canada (65.9%), Australasia (49.9%), United Kingdom (49.5%), and the United States (25.9%) (p < 0.0001). Pharmacologic cardioversion is attempted first in all regions, with the preferred drug being procainamide in Canada (61.93%) and amiodarone in Australasia (63.39%), the United Kingdom (47.97%), and the United States (22.41%; p < 0.0001). If drugs fail, electrical cardioversion is then attempted in Canada (70.64%), Australasia (46.19%), the United States (29.69%), and the United Kingdom (27.78%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is much variation in emergency department (ED) management of RAF among world regions, most markedly for use of rate versus rhythm control, choice of drugs, and use of electrical cardioversion. Canadians are more likely to use an aggressive approach for management of RAF, whereas Americans are more likely to employ conservative management. U.K. and Australasian EPs fall somewhere in the middle. These differences demonstrate the need for better evidence, or better synthesis of existing knowledge, to create guidelines to guide ED management of this common dysrhythmia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".