Temporal trends and factors associated with increased mortality among atrial fibrillation weekend hospitalizations: an insight from National Inpatient Sample 2005–2014

Abstract Objective Atrial fibrillation (AF) weekend hospitalizations were reported to have poor outcomes compared to weekday hospitalizations. The relatively poor outcomes on the weekends are usually referred to as ‘weekend effect’. We aim to understand trends and outcomes among weekend AF hospitalizations. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the trends for weekend AF hospitalizations using Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005–2014. Hospitalizations with AF as the primary diagnosis, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, co-morbidities and cardioversion procedures have been identified using the international classification of diseases 9 codes. Results Since 2005, the weekend AF hospitalizations increased by 27% (72,216 in 2005 to 92,220 in 2014), mortality decreased by 29% (1.32% in 2005 to 0.94% in 2014), increase in urban teaching hospitalizations by 72% (33.32% in 2005 to 57.64% in 2014), twofold increase in depression and a threefold increase in the prevalence of renal failure were noted over the period of 10 years. After adjusting for significant covariates, weekend hospitalizations were observed to have higher odds of in-hospital mortality OR 1.17 (95% CI 1.108–1.235, P < 0.0001). Weekend AF hospitalizations appear to be associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Opportunities to improve care in weekend AF hospitalizations need to be explored.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152157/1/13104_2019_Article_4440.pd

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal