Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common clinical arrhythmia, and it results in adverse outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Racial and ethnic differences in AF management, although recognized, are poorly understood. This review summarizes racial differences in AF epidemiology, genetics, clinical presentation, and management. In addition, it highlights the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic populations in AF clinical trials, especially trials focused on stroke prevention. Specific strategies are proposed for future research and initiatives that have potential to eliminate racial and ethnic differences in the care of patients with AF. Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare access, enrollment in clinical trials, resource allocation, prevention, and management will likely narrow the gaps in the care and outcomes of racial and ethnic minorities suffering from AF., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Digital health is transforming healthcare delivery., Objective: To compare the current digital health landscape in select groups of cardiac electrophysiology (EP) professionals prior to and during the COVID-19 era., Methods: Two online surveys were emailed to 4 Heart Rhythm Society communities and tweeted out to Twitter EP, 1 before and 1 during the pandemic. Categorical variables were analyzed using the χ 2 test and reported as absolute numbers and percentages., Results: There were 253 pre-pandemic (S1) and 273 follow-up surveys (S2) completed. The majority of respondents to both surveys were male, aged <55 years (70.6% vs 75.1%), university-affiliated (52.6% vs 55%), and physicians (83.3% vs 87.9%). Between S1 and S2, routine use of video-telehealth increased (5.9% vs 58.6%; P < .001) for all types of consultations ( P < .001 for all). Wireless electrocardiogram prescribing was prevalent and similar (80.2% vs 81.0%), whereas wireless blood pressure monitoring (9.9% vs 18.3%) and wireless oximetry (1.6% vs 8.1%; P = .006 for both) prescribing both increased. For smartphone mobile applications (mApps), prescriptions for heart rate mApps decreased (50.6% vs 40.7%; P = .022), while vital sign (28.9% vs 37%; P = .04) and symptom trackers (15.8% vs 24.9%; P = .01) prescribing increased. A majority in both surveys (84.6% vs 75.5%) reported no workplace infrastructure or support for digital health with concerns for lack of parity in reimbursement., Conclusion: Our results show an increase in adoption of digital health by EP during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns regarding a lack of supportive infrastructure persisted. Development of professional society guidelines on optimal clinical workflow, infrastructure, and reimbursement may help advance and sustain digital health integration in EP.