Browsing by Author "Imberti, Jacopo Francesco (57212103023)"

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist, making accurate renal function estimation crucial, typically through equations calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (CrCl). Objective: To compare the concordance and predictive performance of different renal function estimation equations in a European cohort of AF patients. Methods: We analyzed data from AF patients enrolled in a prospective observational European registry. Renal function was estimated using eight formulas: BIS-1, CG, CG-BSA, CKD-EPI, EKFC, FAS, LMR and MDRD. Concordance between formulas was assessed using weighted Cohen's Kappa, while Cox regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves evaluated their association with outcomes (composite of all-cause death, any coronary revascularization and any thromboembolism). Results: We included 8,506 patients. CKD-EPI demonstrated good to excellent concordance with other formulas, with the lowest concordance with CG (K = 0.607; 95% CI, 0.595-0.618) and the highest with MDRD (K = 0.880; 95% CI, 0.873-0.887). The risk of adverse outcomes increased sharply when renal function dropped below 60 ml/min across all formulas. CG-BSA and CG formulas showed the best discriminative ability for predicting composite outcomes (AUC 0.660, 95% CI 0.644-0.677, and 0.661, 95% CI 0.644-0.678, respectively). Based on integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis, compared to the CKD-EPI equation, the CG and CG-BSA formulas showed significant improvements in sensitivity of 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively Conclusion: Equations for estimating renal function vary in concordance, with potential implications for drug prescription and predicting adverse events. CG and CG-BSA formulas showed superior performance in identifying patients at risk for adverse outcomes. © 2025 The Authors

Clinical practice in atrial fibrillation (AF) patient management is constantly evolving. In the past 3 years, various new AF guidelines or focused updates have been published, given this rapidly evolving field. In 2019, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association published a focused update of the 2014 guidelines. In 2020, both the European Society of Cardiology and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society released their new guidelines. Finally, the most recent guidelines were those published in 2021 by the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, which updates their 2017 version and the 2021 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. In the present narrative review, we compare these guidelines, emphasizing similarities and differences in the following mainstay elements of patient care: thromboembolic risk assessment, oral anticoagulants (OACs) prescription, bleeding risk evaluation, and integrated patient management. A formal evaluation of baseline thromboembolic and bleeding risks and their reassessment during follow-up is evenly recommended, although some differences in using risk stratification scores. OACs prescription is highly encouraged where appropriate, and prescription algorithms are broadly similar. The importance of an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to patient care is emerging, aiming to address several different aspects of a multifaceted disease. © 2022

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) often occurs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), with a major impact on prognosis. Few data are available on the effect of integrated treatment strategies to improve prognosis in patients with AF. We aimed to evaluate the association between HF (according to left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]), HF optimal medical therapy and adherence to the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway, and major outcomes in patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF (European Society of Cardiology–European Heart Rhythm Association EURObservational Research Programme in Atrial Fibrillation) General Long-Term Registry, we evaluated patients with HF, categorized according to LVEF (HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction). Optimal medical therapy for HF was guidelines-defined. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events. From the original cohort, 9373 (84.5%) patients were included in this analysis (median age, 71 [interquartile range, 62–77] years; 39.9% women). Compared with no HF, all HF categories were associated with an increased risk of the primary composite outcome, with highest figures observed for HF with reduced ejection fraction (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36 [95% CI, 2.00–2.78]). The risk was reduced in patients with AF and HF adherent to optimal medical therapy (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70–0.98]), as well as in those adherents to the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.48–0.88]). The effect of Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway was consistent across the spectrum of LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and HF have a high risk of major adverse events, and this risk is inversely associated with LVEF. Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway adherent management is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with HF, across the spectrum of LVEF. © 2024 The Author(s).

Atrial high rate episodes (AHREs) are defined as asymptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by cardiac implantable electronic devices with atrial sensing, providing automated continuous monitoring and tracings storage, occurring in subjects with no previous clinical atrial fibrillation (AF) and with no AF detected at conventional electrocardiogram recordings. AHREs are associated with an increased thrombo-embolic risk, which is not negligible, although lower than that of clinical AF. The thrombo-embolic risk increases with increasing burden of AHREs, and moreover, AHREs burden shows a dynamic pattern, with tendency to progression along with time, with potential transition to clinical AF. The clinical management of AHREs, in particular with regard to prophylactic treatment with oral anticoagulants (OACs), remains uncertain and heterogeneous. At present, in patients with confirmed AHREs, as a result of device tracing analysis, an integrated, individual and clinically-guided assessment should be applied, taking into account the patients' risk of stroke (to be reassessed regularly) and the AHREs burden. The use of OACs, preferentially non-vitamin K antagonists OACs, may be justified in selected patients, such as those with longer AHREs durations (in the range of several hours or ≥24 h), with no doubts on AF diagnosis after device tracing analysis and with an estimated high/very high individual risk of stroke, accounting for the anticipated net clinical benefit, and informed patient's preferences. Two randomized clinical trials on this topic are currently ongoing and are likely to better define the role of anticoagulant therapy in patients with AHREs. © 2020 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent arrhythmia worldwide. The presence of AF is associated with increased risk of systemic thromboembolism, but with the uptake of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and implementation of a holistic and integrated care management, this risk is substantially reduced. The diagnosis of AF requires a 30-s-long electrocardiographic (ECG) trace, irrespective of the presence of symptoms, which may represent the main indication for an ECG tracing. However, almost half patients are asymptomatic at the time of incidental AF diagnosis, with similar risk of stroke of those with clinical AF. This has led to a crucial role of screening for AF, to increase the diagnosis of population at risk of clinical events. The aim of this review is to give a comprehensive overview about the epidemiology of asymptomatic AF, the different screening technologies, the yield of diagnosis in asymptomatic population, and the benefit derived from screening in terms of reduction of clinical adverse events, such as stroke, cardiovascular, and all-cause death. We aim to underline the importance of implementing AF screening programmes and reporting about the debate between scientific societies’ clinical guidelines recommendations and the concerns expressed by the regulatory authorities, which still do not recommend population-wide screening. This review summarizes data on the ongoing trials specifically designed to investigate the benefit of screening in terms of risk of adverse events which will further elucidate the importance of screening in reducing risk of outcomes and influence and inform clinical practice in the next future. © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.