Browsing by Author "Boriani, Giuseppe (57675336900)"

[No abstract available]

[No abstract available]

At least 30 million people worldwide carry a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), and many more suffer from undiagnosed, subclinical, or 'silent' AF. Atrial fibrillation-related cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, including cardiovascular deaths, heart failure, stroke, and hospitalizations, remain unacceptably high, even when evidence-based therapies such as anticoagulation and rate control are used. Furthermore, it is still necessary to define how best to prevent AF, largely due to a lack of clinical measures that would allow identification of treatable causes of AF in any given patient. Hence, there are important unmet clinical and research needs in the evaluation and management of AF patients. The ensuing needs and opportunities for improving the quality of AF care were discussed during the fifth Atrial Fibrillation Network/European Heart Rhythm Association consensus conference in Nice, France, on 22 and 23 January 2015. Here, we report the outcome of this conference, with a focus on (i) learning from our 'neighbours' to improve AF care, (ii) patient-centred approaches to AF management, (iii) structured care of AF patients, (iv) improving the quality of AF treatment, and (v) personalization of AF management. This report ends with a list of priorities for research in AF patients. © 2015 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Background: Implementation of the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is recommended by guidelines on atrial fibrillation (AF), but the impact of adherence to ABC pathway in patients with cancer is unknown. Objectives: To investigate the adherence to ABC pathway and its impact on adverse outcomes in AF patients with cancer. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry were analyzed according to (i) No Cancer; and (ii) Prior or active cancer and stratified in relation to adherence to the ABC pathway. The composite Net Clinical Outcome (NCO) of all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding was the primary endpoint. Results: Among 6550 patients (median age 69 years, females 40.1%), 6005 (91.7%) had no cancer, while 545 (8.3%) had a diagnosis of active or prior cancer at baseline, with the proportions of full adherence to ABC pathway of 30.6% and 25.7%, respectively. Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significantly lower occurrence of the primary outcome vs. non-adherence, both in ‘no cancer’ and ‘cancer’ patients [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66–0.92 and aHR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37–0.96, respectively]. Adherence to a higher number of ABC criteria was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome, being lowest when 3 ABC criteria were fulfilled (no cancer: aHR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.36–0.81; with cancer: aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13–0.78). Conclusion: In AF patients with cancer enrolled in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, adherence to ABC pathway was sub-optimal. Full adherence to ABC-pathway was associated with a lower risk of adverse events © 2022

Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are in need of stroke prevention are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue treatment shortly after its initiation. Despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such undertreatment has improved somewhat but is still evident. This is due to continued risks of bleeding events or ischemic strokes while on DOAC, poor treatment compliance, or aversion to anticoagulant therapy. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favored for the prevention of thromboembolic events in AF patients who cannot have long-term oral anticoagulation. This article is an executive summary of a practical guide recently published by an international expert consensus group, which introduces the LAAC devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. This practical guide, aligned with published guideline/guidance, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of LAAC. © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

[No abstract available]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major public health problem1 with global prevalence rates (per 1000000 population) in 2010 being 596.2 (95% uncertainty interval (UI), 558.4-636.7) in men and 373.1 (95% UI, 347.9-402.2) in women; the incidence rates increased to 77.5 (95% UI, 65.2-95.4) in men and 59.5 (95% UI, 49.9-74.9) in women.2 Worldwide, AF in association with valvular heart disease (VHD) is also common, and management strategies for this group of patients have been less addressed by randomized trials. The latter have largely focused on 'non-valvular AF' patients leading to major uncertainties over how to define (and treat) such patients. There is also an important heterogeneity in the definition of valvular and non-valvular AF.3 Some physicians assume that any valve disease should be considered as 'valvular' AF. Others consider that only mechanical valve prosthesis and rheumatic mitral stenosis should be defined as 'valvular' AF. The term valvular AF has been arbitrarily applied and the 2016 ESC guidelines have avoided the term 'valvular AF' and refer simply to 'AF related to hemodynamically significant mitral stenosis or prosthetic mechanical heart valves'.4 AF clearly leads to an incremental risk for thromboembolism in patients with mitral valve stenosis, but there are limited data for other valvular diseases. Another proposal is to use the acronym MARM-AF as a simple acronym to designate 'Mechanical and Rheumatic Mitral AF' as an alternative to term 'valvular AF' to designate the clinical scenarios for which at the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are not indicated.5 For this document we recognize the uncertainty in terminology, and our scope largely relates to AF related to 'hemodynamically significant' rheumatic VHD (ie. severe enough to impact on patient's survival or necessitates an intervention or surgery) or prosthetic mechanical heart valves. Nonetheless, thrombo-embolic (TE) risk varies according to valve lesion and may be associated with CHA2DS2VASc score risk factor components, rather than the valve disease per se being causal.6,7 TE risk may also be influenced not only by type but also the severity of the lesion. For example, the degree of mitral regurgitation may matter when it comes to risk of TE as some studies suggest that mild (Grade 1) mitral regurgitation is associated with a 2.7-fold increased risk of stroke/TE, while severe forms may possibly have a 'protective' effect (HR = 0.45 for stroke and 0.27 for LA stasis.8 An appropriate definition of 'valvular AF' would need to identify a subgroup of patients with similar pathophysiology of thrombo-embolism, TE risk, and treatment strategies6,9; however, this would be challenging given the major heterogeneity of the condition. This consensus document proposes that the term 'valvular AF' is outdated and given that any definition ultimately relates to the evaluated practical use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) type, we propose a functional EHRA (EvaluatedHeartvalves, Rheumatic orArtificial) categorization in relation to the type of OAC use in patients with AF, as follows:Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial (EHRA) Type 1,which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a Vitamin K antagonist (VKA)' © The Author 2016.

Management strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in association with valvular heart disease (VHD) have been less informed by randomized trials, which have largely focused on 'non-valvular AF' patients. Thromboembolic risk also varies according to valve lesion and may also be associated with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score risk factor components, rather than only the valve disease being causal. Given the need to provide expert recommendations for professionals participating in the care of patients presenting with AF and associated VHD, a task force was convened by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group (WG) on Thrombosis, with representation from the ESC WG on Valvular Heart Disease, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), South African Heart (SA Heart) Association and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE) with the remit to comprehensively review the published evidence, and to produce a consensus document on the management of patients with AF and associated VHD, with up-to-date consensus statements for clinical practice for different forms of VHD, based on the principles of evidence-based medicine. This is an executive summary of a consensus document which proposes that the term 'valvular AF' is outdated and given that any definition ultimately relates to the evaluated practical use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) type, we propose a functional EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) categorization in relation to the type of OAC use in patients with AF, as follows: (1) EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) type 1 VHD, which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA)' and (2) EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) type 2 VHD, which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a VKA or a non-VKA oral anticoagulant also taking into consideration CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score risk factor components. © 2017 Schattauer.

Aims: In recent years, stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has radically changed, with increasing use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Contemporary European data on AF thromboprophylaxis are needed. Methods and results: We report 1-year follow-up data from the EURObservational Research Programme in Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry. Outcomes were assessed according to antithrombotic therapy. At 1-year follow-up, 9663 (88.0%) patients had available data for analysis: 586 (6.1%) were not treated with any antithrombotic; 681 (7.0%) with antiplatelets only; 4066 (42.1%) with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) only; 3167 (32.8%) with NOACs only; and 1163 (12.0%) with antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant. At 1-year follow-up, there was a low rate of stroke (0.7%) and any thromboembolic event (TE) (1.2%), while haemorrhagic events occurred in 222 patients (2.3%). Cardiovascular (CV) death and all-cause death occurred in 3.9% and 5.2% of patients, respectively. Cumulative survival for all the three main outcomes considered was highest amongst patients treated only with NOACs (P < 0.0001). Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis found that VKA or NOACs use was independently associated with a lower risk for any TE/acute coronary syndrome/CV death, while all treatments were independently associated with a lower risk for CV death and all-cause death. Conclusion: The 1-year follow-up of EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry reported a low occurrence of thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events, although mortality was high. Both VKA and NOACs were associated with a lower risk of all main adverse outcomes. All treatments were associated with a lower risk for CV death and all-cause death. © 2019 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Background: The outcome implications of asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) in specific groups of patients according to clinical heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) need to be clarified. Methods: In a prospective observational study, patients were categorized according to overt HF with LVEF≤40 %, or with LVEF>40 %, or without overt HF with LVEF40 %≤ or > 40 %, as well as according to the presence of asymptomatic or symptomatic AF. Results: A total of 8096 patients, divided into 8 groups according to HF and LVEF, were included with similar proportions of asymptomatic AF (ranging from 43 to 48 %). After a median follow-up of 730 [699 -748] days, the composite outcome (all-cause death and MACE) was significantly worse for patients with asymptomatic AF associated with HF and reduced LVEF vs. symptomatic AF patients of the same group (p = 0.004). On adjusted Cox regression analysis, asymptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF were independently associated with a higher risk for the composite outcome (aHR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.04-1.69) and all-cause death (aHR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.02-1.73) compared to symptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that HF-LVEF≤40 % asymptomatic patients had the highest cumulative incidence of all-cause death and MACE (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: In a large European cohort of AF patients, the risk of the composite outcome at 2 years was not different between asymptomatic and symptomatic AF in the whole cohort but adverse implications for poor outcomes were found for asymptomatic AF in HF with LVEF≤40 %. © 2023 European Federation of Internal Medicine

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is one pillar of the management of this common arrhythmia. Substantial advances in the epidemiology and associated pathophysiology underlying AF-related stroke and thrombo-embolism are evident. Furthermore, the introduction of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (also called direct oral anticoagulants) has clearly changed our approach to stroke prevention in AF, such that the default should be to offer oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, unless the patient is at low risk. A strategy of early rhythm control is also beneficial in reducing strokes in selected patients with recent onset AF, when compared to rate control. Cardiovascular risk factor management, with optimization of comorbidities and attention to lifestyle factors, and the patient's psychological morbidity are also essential. Finally, in selected patients with absolute contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion may be considered. The aim of this state-of-the-art review article is to provide an overview of the current status of AF-related stroke and prevention strategies. A holistic or integrated care approach to AF management is recommended to minimize the risk of stroke in patients with AF, based on the evidence-based Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, as follows: A: Avoid stroke with Anticoagulation; B: Better patient-centred, symptom-directed decisions on rate or rhythm control; C: Cardiovascular risk factor and comorbidity optimization, including lifestyle changes. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common cardiac diseases and a complicating comorbidity for multiple associated diseases. Many clinical decisions regarding AF are currently based on the binary recognition of AF being present or absent with the categorical appraisal of AF as continued or intermittent. Assessment of AF in clinical trials is largely limited to the time to (first) detection of an AF episode. Substantial evidence shows, however, that the quantitative characteristic of intermittent AF has a relevant impact on symptoms, onset, and progression of AF and AF-related outcomes, including mortality. Atrial fibrillation burden is increasingly recognized as a suitable quantitative measure of intermittent AF that provides an estimate of risk attributable to AF, the efficacy of antiarrhythmic treatment, and the need for oral anticoagulation. However, the diversity of assessment methods and the lack of a consistent definition of AF burden prevent a wider clinical applicability and validation of actionable thresholds of AF burden. To facilitate progress in this field, the AF burden Consensus Group, an international and multidisciplinary collaboration, proposes a unified definition of AF burden. Based on current evidence and using a modified Delphi technique, consensus statements were attained on the four main areas describing AF burden: Defining the characteristics of AF burden, the recording principles, the clinical relevance in major clinical conditions, and implementation as an outcome in the clinic and in clinical trials. According to this consensus, AF burden is defined as the proportion of time spent in AF expressed as a percentage of the recording time, undertaken during a specified monitoring duration. A pivotal requirement for validity and comparability of AF burden assessment is a continuous or near-continuous duration of monitoring that needs to be reported together with the AF burden assessment. This proposed unified definition of AF burden applies independent of comorbidities and outcomes. However, the disease-specific actionable thresholds of AF burden need to be defined according to the targeted clinical outcomes in specific populations. The duration of the longest episode of uninterrupted AF expressed as a time duration should also be reported when appropriate. A unified definition of AF burden will allow for comparability of clinical study data to expand evidence and to establish actionable thresholds of AF burden in various clinical conditions. This proposed definition of AF burden will support risk evaluation and clinical treatment decisions in AF-related disease. It will further promote the development of clinical trials studying the clinical relevance of intermittent AF. A unified approach on AF burden will finally inform the technology development of heart rhythm monitoring towards validated technology to meet clinical needs. © The European Society of Cardiology 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

The most recent atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines delivered by European Society of Cardiology (ESC) offer an updated approach to AF management, with the perspective of improved characterization of the arrhythmia, the cardiac substrate and the patients profile in terms of associated risk factors and comorbidities. Recommendations were based on careful scrutiny and assessment of all available evidence with the final aim to offer to practitioners a lower level of uncertainty in the complex process of decision making for patients with AF. The 2020 ESC guidelines on AF propose a paradigm shift in the clinical approach to AF patients, moving from a single-domain AF classification to comprehensive characterization of AF patients. Given the complex nature of AF, an integrated holistic management of AF patients is suggested by the guidelines for improving patients outcomes through the formal introduction of the CC (Confirm AF and Characterize AF) to ABC (Atrial fibrillation Better Care) pathway. In line with this concept, these new guidelines underline the importance of a more comprehensive management of AF patients which should not be limited to simply prescribe oral anticoagulation or decide between a rhythm or rate control strategy. Indeed, each step of the ABC pathway represents one of the pivotal pillars in the management of AF and only a holistic approach has the potential to improve patients’ outcomes. In this review we will discuss the background that supports some of the new recommendations of 2020 ESC guidelines, with important implications for daily management of AF patients. © 2021