Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

INTRODUCTION The Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway for holistic management, introduced in 2017, provides a useful approach (A,

Background Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We aim to determine the impact of ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analysed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty, multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on major outcomes was analysed through Cox-regression analyses and delay of event (DoE) analyses. Results Among 9966 AF patients included, 8289 (83.1%) were clinically complex. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.72, 95%CI 0.58–0.91), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; aHR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.52–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58–0.85). Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.98) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.76, 95%CI 0.60–0.96) also in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all the outcomes investigated in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the number needed to treat for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes among clinically complex AF patients.

Aims The 4S-AF classification scheme comprises of four domains: stroke risk (St), symptoms (Sy), severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (Sb), and substrate (Su). We sought to examine the implementation of the 4S-AF scheme in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry and compare outcomes in AF patients according to the 4S-AF-led decision-making process. Methods and results  Atrial fibrillation patients from 250 centres across 27 European countries were included. A 4S-AF score was calculated as the sum of each domain with a maximum score of 9. Of 6321 patients, 8.4% had low (St), 47.5% EHRA I (Sy), 40.5% newly diagnosed or paroxysmal AF (Sb), and 5.1% no cardiovascular risk factors or left atrial enlargement (Su). Median follow-up was 24 months. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality were (St) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 8.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60–25.9], (Sb) (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08–1.35), and (Su) (aHR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14–1.41). For CV mortality and any thromboembolic event, only (Su) (aHR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.45–2.06) and (Sy) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.00–1.66) were statistically significant, respectively. None of the domains were independently linked to ischaemic stroke or major bleeding. Higher 4S-AF score was related to a significant increase in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, any thromboembolic event, and ischaemic stroke but not major bleeding. Treatment of all 4S-AF domains was associated with an independent decrease in all-cause mortality (aHR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). For each 4S-AF domain left untreated, the risk of all-cause mortality increased substantially (aHR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16–1.56). Conclusion  Implementation of the novel 4S-AF scheme is feasible, and treatment decisions based on this scheme improve mortality rates in AF.

Objective: We investigated the impact of multimorbidity and polypharmacy on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in clinical practice and assessed factors associated with polypharmacy and oral anticoagulation (OAC) use in AF patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Methods: A 14-week prospective study of consecutive non-valvular AF patients was performed in seven Balkan countries. Results: Of 2712 consecutive patients, 2263 patients (83.4%) had multimorbidity (AF þ !2 concomitant diseases) and 1505 patients (55.5%) had polypharmacy. 1416 (52.2%) patients had both multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Overall, 1164 (82.2%) patients received OAC, 200 (14.1%) patients received antiplatelet drugs alone and 52 (3.7%) patients had no antithrombotic therapy (AT). Non-emergency centre and paroxysmal AF were significantly associated with OAC non-use in patients with multimorbidity, whilst age !80 years and non-emergency centre were identified to be independent predictors of OAC non-use in patients with polypharmacy. Conclusions: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy were common among AF patients in our study. AT was suboptimal and approximately 18% of multimorbid patients with polypharmacy were not anticoagulated. Pattern of AF and non-emergency centre were associated with OAC non-use in AF patients with multimorbidity, whilst non-emergency centre and age !80 years were associated with OAC non-use in AF patients with polypharmacy. KEY MESSAGE Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are common among patients with AF. Antithrombotic therapy was suboptimal in AF patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Approximately, 18% of multimorbid patients with polypharmacy were not anticoagulated.

Background Frailty is a medical syndrome characterised by reduced physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to stressors. Data regarding the relationship between frailty and atrial fibrillation (AF) are still inconsistent. Objectives We aim to perform a comprehensive evaluation of frailty in a large European cohort of AF patients. Methods A 40-item frailty index (FI) was built according to the accumulation of deficits model in the AF patients enrolled in the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry. Association of baseline characteristics, clinical management, quality of life, healthcare resources use and risk of outcomes with frailty was examined. Results Among 10,177 patients [mean age (standard deviation) 69.0 (11.4) years, 4,103 (40.3%) females], 6,066 (59.6%) were pre-frail and 2,172 (21.3%) were frail, whereas only 1,939 (19.1%) were considered robust. Baseline thromboembolic and bleeding risks were independently associated with increasing FI. Frail patients with AF were less likely to be treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.55–0.89), especially with non-vitamin K antagonist OACs and managed with a rhythm control strategy, compared with robust patients. Increasing frailty was associated with a higher risk for all outcomes examined, with a non-linear exponential relationship. The use of OAC was associated with a lower risk of outcomes, except in patients with very/extremely high frailty. Conclusions In this large cohort of AF patients, there was a high burden of frailty, influencing clinical management and risk of adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of OAC is maintained in patients with high frailty, but not in very high/extremely frail ones.

No abstract