Browsing by Author "Madrid, Antonio (57208118344)"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Publication How are patients with atrial fibrillation approached and informed about their risk profile and available therapies in Europe? Results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey(2015) ;Potpara, Tatjana S. (57216792589) ;Pison, Laurent (26642819800) ;Larsen, Torben B. (7202517549) ;Estner, Heidi (6506978495) ;Madrid, Antonio (57208118344)Blomström-Lundqvist, Carina (55941853900)This European Heart Rhythm (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee EP Wire Survey aimed at exploring the common practices in approaching patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and informing them about their risk profiles and available therapies in Europe. In the majority of 53 responding centres, patients were seen by cardiologists (86.8%) or arrhythmologists (64.2%). First- and follow-up visits most commonly lasted 21-30 and 11-20 min (41.5 and 69.8% of centres, respectively). In most centres (80.2%) stroke and bleeding risk had the highest priority for discussion with AF patients; 50.9% of centres had a structured patient education programme for stroke prevention. Individual patient stroke risk was assessed at every visit in 69.2% of the centres; 46.1% of centres had a hospital-based anticoagulation clinic. Information about non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) was communicated to all AF patients eligible for oral anticoagulation (38.5% of centres) or to warfarin-naive/unstable patients (42.3%). Only two centres (3.8%) had a structured NOAC adherence follow-up programme; in eight centres (15.4%) patients were requested to sign the statement they have been informed about the risks of non-adherence to NOAC therapy, and three centres (5.8%) had a patient education programme. Patient preferences were of the highest relevance regarding oral anticoagulation and AF ablation (64.7 and 49.0% of centres, respectively). This EP Wire Survey shows that in Europe considerable amount of time and resources are used in daily clinical practice to inform AF patients about their risk profile and available therapies. However, a diversity of strategies used across the European hospitals was noted, and further research is needed to better define optimal strategies for informing AF patients about their risk profile and treatment options. © Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Publication Stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart valve abnormalities: Perceptions of 'valvular' atrial fibrillation: Results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey(2016) ;Potpara, Tatjana S. (57216792589) ;Lip, Gregory Y.H. (57216675273) ;Larsen, Torben B. (7202517549) ;Madrid, Antonio (57208118344) ;Dobreanu, Dan (6505986034) ;Jȩdrzejczyk-Patej, Ewa (55482785200)Dagres, Nikolaos (7003639393)The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Survey was to assess the perceptions of 'valvular' atrial fibrillation (AF) and management of AF patients with various heart valve abnormalities in daily clinical practice in European electrophysiology (EP) centres. Questionnaire survey was sent via the Internet to the EHRA-EP Research Network Centres. Of the 52 responding centres, 42 (80.8%) were university hospitals. Choosing the most comprehensive definition of valvular AF, a total of 49 centres (94.2%) encountered a mechanical prosthetic heart valve and significant rheumatic mitral stenosis, 35 centres (67.3%) also considered bioprosthetic valves, and 25 centres (48.1%) included any significant valvular heart disease, requiring surgical repair in the definition of valvular AF. Only three centres (5.8%) would define valvular AF as the presence of any (even mild) valvular abnormality. None of the centres would use non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in AF patients with mechanical prosthetic valves, only 5 centres (9.8%) would use NOACs in patients with significant mitral stenosis, 17 centres (32.7%) would consider the use of NOACs in patients with bioprosthetic valves, and 21 centres (41.2%) would use NOACs in patients with a non-recent transcatheter valve replacement/implantation, while 13 centres (25.5%) would never consider the use of NOACs in AF patients with even mild native heart valve abnormality. Our survey showed marked heterogeneity in the definition of valvular AF and thromboprophylactic treatments, with the use of variable NOACs in patients with valvular heart disease other than prosthetic heart valves or significant mitral stenosis, indicating that this term may be misleading and should not be used. © 2016 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
