Browsing by Author "Lane, Deirdre A (57203229915)"

[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.

The management of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in a patient with existing atrial fibrillation (AF) often presents a management dilemma both in the acute phase and post-ACS, since the majority of AF patients will already be receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention and will require further antithrombotic treatment to reduce the risk of in-stent thrombosis or recurrent cardiac events. Current practice recommendations are based largely on consensus option as there is limited evidence from randomized controlled trials. Prior to the launch of the new European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus document, a survey was undertaken to examine current clinical management of these patients across centres in Europe. Forty-seven centres submitted valid responses, with the majority (70.2%) being university hospitals. This EHRA survey demonstrated overall the management of ACS in AF patients is consistent with the available guidance. Most centres would use triple therapy for a short duration (4 weeks) and predominantly utilize a strategy of OAC (vitamin K antagonist, VKA or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, NOAC) plus aspirin and clopidogrel, followed by dual therapy [(N)OAC plus clopidogrel] until 12 months post-percutaneous coronary intervention, followed by (N)OAC monotherapy indefinitely. Where NOAC was used in combination with antiplatelet(s), the lower dose of the respective NOAC was preferred, in accordance with current recommendations. © 2019 Published 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

Aims: A plethora of mobile health applications (m-health apps) to support healthcare are available for both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) but content and quality vary considerably and few have undergone formal assessment. The aim is to systematically review the literature on m-health apps for managing atrial fibrillation (AF) that examine the impact on knowledge of AF, patient and HCP behaviour, patients' quality-of-life, and user engagement. Methods and results: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo were searched from 1 January 2005 to 5 September 2019, with hand-searching of clinical trial registers and grey literature. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported changes in any of the following: (i) knowledge of AF; (ii) provider behaviour (e.g. guideline adherence); (iii) patient behaviour (e.g. medication adherence); (iv) patient quality-of-life; and (v) user engagement. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. A narrative review was undertaken as included studies varied widely in their design, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Seven studies were included; six m-health apps aimed at patients and one at HCPs. Mobile health apps ranged widely in design, features, and method of delivery. Four studies reported patient knowledge of AF; three demonstrated significant knowledge improvement post-intervention or compared to usual care. One study reported greater HCP adherence to oral anticoagulation guidelines after m-health app implementation. Two studies reported on patient medication adherence and quality-of-life; both showed improved quality-of-life post-intervention but only one observed increased adherence. Regarding user engagement, five studies reported patient perspectives on usability, three on acceptability, and one on feasibility; overall all m-health apps were rated positively. Conclusion: Mobile health apps demonstrate improvements in patient knowledge, behaviour, and quality of life. Studies formally evaluating the impact of m-health on HCP behaviour are scarce and larger-scale studies with representative patient cohorts, appropriate comparators, and longer-Term assessment of the impact of m-health apps are warranted. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.