Browsing by Author "Gue, Ying X. (57195301818)"

Whilst there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision to initiate and continue anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both the thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug–drug and food–drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static ‘one off’ assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by ageing, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this Consensus Document, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with the view to summarizing ‘best practice’ when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, review established bleeding risk factors, and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice. © 2022 Authors. All rights reserved.

While there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision for initiating and continuing anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static one-off assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by aging, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this executive summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with a view to summarizing best practice when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, and review established bleeding risk factors and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism, are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice. © 2022 Georg Thieme Verlag. All rights reserved.

Introduction: Effective stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) reduces the risk of stroke and death among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). For most patients with AF, treatment options include vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). NOACs have been introduced as an alternative to VKAs, and their use has been steadily increasing in the United Kingdom and Europe over a decade. In randomized clinical trials, NOACs had a favorable risk-benefit profile as compared to warfarin. However, there is a concern about their long-term safety in clinical practice, especially in high-risk patients. There have been a number of registries and surveys based on the real-world patients with AF which has been conducted and published, providing data on contemporary AF management. Areas covered: In this narrative review, the authors discuss current trends in the use of OAC in the United Kingdom and Europe, considering the potential directions for future anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF. Expert opinion: The increasing prevalence of AF and AF-related comorbidities proves the need for comprehensive prevention and management strategies. The challenge is the optimization of therapy for each patient. However, there are still gaps in optimal stroke prevention, and the mortality rates remain high in patients with AF. © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Introduction: Effective stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) reduces the risk of stroke and death among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). For most patients with AF, treatment options include vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). NOACs have been introduced as an alternative to VKAs, and their use has been steadily increasing in the United Kingdom and Europe over a decade. In randomized clinical trials, NOACs had a favorable risk-benefit profile as compared to warfarin. However, there is a concern about their long-term safety in clinical practice, especially in high-risk patients. There have been a number of registries and surveys based on the real-world patients with AF which has been conducted and published, providing data on contemporary AF management. Areas covered: In this narrative review, the authors discuss current trends in the use of OAC in the United Kingdom and Europe, considering the potential directions for future anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF. Expert opinion: The increasing prevalence of AF and AF-related comorbidities proves the need for comprehensive prevention and management strategies. The challenge is the optimization of therapy for each patient. However, there are still gaps in optimal stroke prevention, and the mortality rates remain high in patients with AF. © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

[No abstract available]

[No abstract available]

Purpose: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) carries a very high mortality rate even after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Currently, information given to relatives about prognosis following resuscitation is often emotive and subjective, and varies with clinician experience. We aimed to validate the NULL-PLEASE score to predict survival following OHCA. Methods: A multicenter cohort study was conducted, with retrospective and prospective validation in consecutive unselected patients presenting with OHCA. The NULL-PLEASE score was calculated by attributing points to the following variables: Nonshockable initial rhythm, Unwitnessed arrest, Long low-flow period, Long no-flow period, pH <7.2, Lactate >7.0 mmol/L, End-stage renal failure, Age ≥85 years, Still resuscitation, and Extracardiac cause. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Results: We assessed 700 patients admitted with OHCA, of whom 47% survived to discharge. In 300 patients we performed a retrospective validation, followed by prospective validation in 400 patients. The NULL-PLEASE score was lower in patients who survived compared with those who died (0 [interquartile range 0-1] vs 4 [interquartile range 2-4], P <.0005) and strongly predictive of in-hospital death (C-statistic 0.874; 95% confidence interval, 0.848-0.899). Patients with a score ≥3 had a 24-fold increased risk of death (odds ratio 23.6; 95% confidence interval, 14.840-37.5; P <.0005) compared with those with lower scores. A score ≥3 has a 91% positive predictive value for in-hospital death, while a score <3 predicts a 71% chance of survival. Conclusion: The easy-to-use NULL-PLEASE score predicts in-hospital mortality with high specificity and can help clinicians explain the prognosis to relatives in an easy-to-understand, objective fashion, to realistically prepare them for the future. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.