Browsing by Author "Mei, Davide Antonio (57223301580)"

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