Browsing by Author "Potpara, Tatjana (57216792589)"

In 2014, a joint consensus document dealing with the management of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary or valve interventions was published, which represented an effort of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA) endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS). Since publication of this document, additional data from observational cohorts, randomized controlled trials, and percutaneous interventions as well as new guidelines have been published. Moreover, new drugs and devices/interventions are also available, with an increasing evidence base. The approach to managing AF has also evolved towards a more integrated or holistic approach. In recognizing these advances since the last consensus document, EHRA, WG Thrombosis, EAPCI, and ACCA, with additional contributions from HRS, APHRS, Latin America Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), and Cardiac Arrhythmia Society of Southern Africa (CASSA), proposed a focused update, to include the new data, with the remit of comprehensively reviewing the available evidence and publishing a focused update consensus document on the management of antithrombotic therapy in AF patients presenting with ACS and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary or valve interventions, and providing up-to-date consensus recommendations for use in clinical practice. European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions.

[No abstract available]

[No abstract available]

At least 30 million people worldwide carry a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), and many more suffer from undiagnosed, subclinical, or 'silent' AF. Atrial fibrillation-related cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, including cardiovascular deaths, heart failure, stroke, and hospitalizations, remain unacceptably high, even when evidence-based therapies such as anticoagulation and rate control are used. Furthermore, it is still necessary to define how best to prevent AF, largely due to a lack of clinical measures that would allow identification of treatable causes of AF in any given patient. Hence, there are important unmet clinical and research needs in the evaluation and management of AF patients. The ensuing needs and opportunities for improving the quality of AF care were discussed during the fifth Atrial Fibrillation Network/European Heart Rhythm Association consensus conference in Nice, France, on 22 and 23 January 2015. Here, we report the outcome of this conference, with a focus on (i) learning from our 'neighbours' to improve AF care, (ii) patient-centred approaches to AF management, (iii) structured care of AF patients, (iv) improving the quality of AF treatment, and (v) personalization of AF management. This report ends with a list of priorities for research in AF patients. © 2015 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are in need of stroke prevention are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue treatment shortly after its initiation. Despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such undertreatment has improved somewhat but is still evident. This is due to continued risks of bleeding events or ischemic strokes while on DOAC, poor treatment compliance, or aversion to anticoagulant therapy. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favored for the prevention of thromboembolic events in AF patients who cannot have long-term oral anticoagulation. This article is an executive summary of a practical guide recently published by an international expert consensus group, which introduces the LAAC devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. This practical guide, aligned with published guideline/guidance, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of LAAC. © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

[No abstract available]

[No abstract available]

Oral anticoagulant therapy, either with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or with novel oral anticoagulants such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, is the mainstay for thromboprophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Thromboembolic risk factors associated with AF and risk factors for bleeding associated with oral anticoagulant therapy are largely the same, and bleeding risk very rarely outweighs individual benefit of thrombosis prevention, thus resulting in positive net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy in almost all AF patients. Prevention of AF-related thromboembolic events most commonly requires long-term oral anticoagulant therapy. Over time, various clinical situations may occur in a given patient (e.g., a need for an urgent surgery or invasive intervention, acute stroke, etc.), which may require a temporary or permanent modification of anticoagulant therapy regardless of which anticoagulant drug has been used. This may be particularly challenging for physicians because many issues regarding optimal use of oral anticoagulant drugs in specific clinical situations still remain to be solved. In this review article, we discuss the periprocedural management of oral anticoagulant therapy, bridging, transition to another oral anticoagulant, the occurrence of acute stroke in a patient already taking an oral anticoagulant, and decision when it is safe to resume oral anticoagulation therapy after stroke. We summarize the available evidence and current (and future) approaches to oral anticoagulation management in such clinical situations. Copyright by Medycyna Praktyczna, 2013.

Background: Evidence increasingly shows that the risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Several organizations have released guidelines for the management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy and prevention of VTE. However, an urgent need exists for practical guidance on the management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in this setting. Research Question: What is the current available evidence informing the prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19? Study Design and Methods: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that address urgent clinical questions regarding prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Using MEDLINE via PubMed, a literature search was conducted and references were screened for inclusion. Data from included studies were summarized and reviewed by the panel. Consensus for the direction and strength of recommendations was achieved using a modified Delphi survey. Results: The review and analysis of the literature based on 11 PICO questions resulted in 11 recommendations. Overall, a low quality of evidence specific to the population with COVID-19 was found. Consequently, many of the recommendations were based on indirect evidence and prior guidelines in similar populations without COVID-19. Interpretation: The existing evidence and panel consensus do not suggest a major departure from the management of arterial thrombosis according to recommendations predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on the optimal strategies for prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 are sparse. More high-quality evidence is needed to inform management strategies in these patients. © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians

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.

Management strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in association with valvular heart disease (VHD) have been less informed by randomized trials, which have largely focused on 'non-valvular AF' patients. Thromboembolic risk also varies according to valve lesion and may also be associated with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score risk factor components, rather than only the valve disease being causal. Given the need to provide expert recommendations for professionals participating in the care of patients presenting with AF and associated VHD, a task force was convened by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group (WG) on Thrombosis, with representation from the ESC WG on Valvular Heart Disease, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), South African Heart (SA Heart) Association and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE) with the remit to comprehensively review the published evidence, and to produce a consensus document on the management of patients with AF and associated VHD, with up-to-date consensus statements for clinical practice for different forms of VHD, based on the principles of evidence-based medicine. This is an executive summary of a consensus document which 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 (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) categorization in relation to the type of OAC use in patients with AF, as follows: (1) EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) type 1 VHD, which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA)' and (2) EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) type 2 VHD, which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a VKA or a non-VKA oral anticoagulant also taking into consideration CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score risk factor components. © 2017 Schattauer.

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.

Aims: In recent years, stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has radically changed, with increasing use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Contemporary European data on AF thromboprophylaxis are needed. Methods and results: We report 1-year follow-up data from the EURObservational Research Programme in Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry. Outcomes were assessed according to antithrombotic therapy. At 1-year follow-up, 9663 (88.0%) patients had available data for analysis: 586 (6.1%) were not treated with any antithrombotic; 681 (7.0%) with antiplatelets only; 4066 (42.1%) with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) only; 3167 (32.8%) with NOACs only; and 1163 (12.0%) with antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant. At 1-year follow-up, there was a low rate of stroke (0.7%) and any thromboembolic event (TE) (1.2%), while haemorrhagic events occurred in 222 patients (2.3%). Cardiovascular (CV) death and all-cause death occurred in 3.9% and 5.2% of patients, respectively. Cumulative survival for all the three main outcomes considered was highest amongst patients treated only with NOACs (P < 0.0001). Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis found that VKA or NOACs use was independently associated with a lower risk for any TE/acute coronary syndrome/CV death, while all treatments were independently associated with a lower risk for CV death and all-cause death. Conclusion: The 1-year follow-up of EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry reported a low occurrence of thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events, although mortality was high. Both VKA and NOACs were associated with a lower risk of all main adverse outcomes. All treatments were associated with a lower risk for CV death and all-cause death. © 2019 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Background: The outcome implications of asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) in specific groups of patients according to clinical heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) need to be clarified. Methods: In a prospective observational study, patients were categorized according to overt HF with LVEF≤40 %, or with LVEF>40 %, or without overt HF with LVEF40 %≤ or > 40 %, as well as according to the presence of asymptomatic or symptomatic AF. Results: A total of 8096 patients, divided into 8 groups according to HF and LVEF, were included with similar proportions of asymptomatic AF (ranging from 43 to 48 %). After a median follow-up of 730 [699 -748] days, the composite outcome (all-cause death and MACE) was significantly worse for patients with asymptomatic AF associated with HF and reduced LVEF vs. symptomatic AF patients of the same group (p = 0.004). On adjusted Cox regression analysis, asymptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF were independently associated with a higher risk for the composite outcome (aHR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.04-1.69) and all-cause death (aHR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.02-1.73) compared to symptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that HF-LVEF≤40 % asymptomatic patients had the highest cumulative incidence of all-cause death and MACE (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: In a large European cohort of AF patients, the risk of the composite outcome at 2 years was not different between asymptomatic and symptomatic AF in the whole cohort but adverse implications for poor outcomes were found for asymptomatic AF in HF with LVEF≤40 %. © 2023 European Federation of Internal Medicine

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disorder, and increases in prevalence with increasing age and the number of cardiovascular comorbidities. AF is characterized by a rapid and irregular heartbeat that can be asymptomatic or lead to symptoms such as palpitations, dyspnoea and dizziness. The condition can also be associated with serious complications, including an increased risk of stroke. Important recent developments in the clinical epidemiology and management of AF have informed our approach to this arrhythmia. This Primer provides a comprehensive overview of AF, including its epidemiology, mechanisms and pathophysiology, diagnosis, screening, prevention and management. Management strategies, including stroke prevention, rate control and rhythm control, are considered. We also address quality of life issues and provide an outlook on future developments and ongoing clinical trials in managing this common arrhythmia. © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is one pillar of the management of this common arrhythmia. Substantial advances in the epidemiology and associated pathophysiology underlying AF-related stroke and thrombo-embolism are evident. Furthermore, the introduction of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (also called direct oral anticoagulants) has clearly changed our approach to stroke prevention in AF, such that the default should be to offer oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, unless the patient is at low risk. A strategy of early rhythm control is also beneficial in reducing strokes in selected patients with recent onset AF, when compared to rate control. Cardiovascular risk factor management, with optimization of comorbidities and attention to lifestyle factors, and the patient's psychological morbidity are also essential. Finally, in selected patients with absolute contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion may be considered. The aim of this state-of-the-art review article is to provide an overview of the current status of AF-related stroke and prevention strategies. A holistic or integrated care approach to AF management is recommended to minimize the risk of stroke in patients with AF, based on the evidence-based Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, as follows: A: Avoid stroke with Anticoagulation; B: Better patient-centred, symptom-directed decisions on rate or rhythm control; C: Cardiovascular risk factor and comorbidity optimization, including lifestyle changes. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common cardiac diseases and a complicating comorbidity for multiple associated diseases. Many clinical decisions regarding AF are currently based on the binary recognition of AF being present or absent with the categorical appraisal of AF as continued or intermittent. Assessment of AF in clinical trials is largely limited to the time to (first) detection of an AF episode. Substantial evidence shows, however, that the quantitative characteristic of intermittent AF has a relevant impact on symptoms, onset, and progression of AF and AF-related outcomes, including mortality. Atrial fibrillation burden is increasingly recognized as a suitable quantitative measure of intermittent AF that provides an estimate of risk attributable to AF, the efficacy of antiarrhythmic treatment, and the need for oral anticoagulation. However, the diversity of assessment methods and the lack of a consistent definition of AF burden prevent a wider clinical applicability and validation of actionable thresholds of AF burden. To facilitate progress in this field, the AF burden Consensus Group, an international and multidisciplinary collaboration, proposes a unified definition of AF burden. Based on current evidence and using a modified Delphi technique, consensus statements were attained on the four main areas describing AF burden: Defining the characteristics of AF burden, the recording principles, the clinical relevance in major clinical conditions, and implementation as an outcome in the clinic and in clinical trials. According to this consensus, AF burden is defined as the proportion of time spent in AF expressed as a percentage of the recording time, undertaken during a specified monitoring duration. A pivotal requirement for validity and comparability of AF burden assessment is a continuous or near-continuous duration of monitoring that needs to be reported together with the AF burden assessment. This proposed unified definition of AF burden applies independent of comorbidities and outcomes. However, the disease-specific actionable thresholds of AF burden need to be defined according to the targeted clinical outcomes in specific populations. The duration of the longest episode of uninterrupted AF expressed as a time duration should also be reported when appropriate. A unified definition of AF burden will allow for comparability of clinical study data to expand evidence and to establish actionable thresholds of AF burden in various clinical conditions. This proposed definition of AF burden will support risk evaluation and clinical treatment decisions in AF-related disease. It will further promote the development of clinical trials studying the clinical relevance of intermittent AF. A unified approach on AF burden will finally inform the technology development of heart rhythm monitoring towards validated technology to meet clinical needs. © The European Society of Cardiology 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Major bleeding (especially intracranial hemorrhage) is the most feared adverse event observed in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving oral anticoagulation. Clinical risk factor-based scores have modest ability to predict major or clinically relevant bleeds, and blood biomarkers are increasingly implemented to improve bleeding prognostication in patients with AF on life-long anticoagulation. To improve the safety of anticoagulation in the era of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs, or direct oral anticoagulants [DOACs], including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), specific demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables should be considered. The current review summarizes practical challenges in the management of oral anticoagulation with emphasis on the risk assessment tools, elderly or underweight patients, cancer patients, impact of chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, and thrombocytopenia in the context of bleeding risk in patients with AF. Copyright © 2020 by the Author(s).

Major bleeding (especially intracranial hemorrhage) is the most feared adverse event observed in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving oral anticoagulation. Clinical risk factor-based scores have modest ability to predict major or clinically relevant bleeds, and blood biomarkers are increasingly implemented to improve bleeding prognostication in patients with AF on life-long anticoagulation. To improve the safety of anticoagulation in the era of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs, or direct oral anticoagulants [DOACs], including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), specific demo- graphic, clinical, and laboratory variables should be considered. The current review summarizes practi- cal challenges in the management of oral anticoagulation with emphasis on the risk assessment tools, elderly or underweight patients, cancer patients, impact of chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, and thrombocytopenia in the context of bleeding risk in patients with AF. © Copyright by Medycyna Praktyczna, Kraków 2020