Inappropriate drug use is frequent among patients with NVAF not only for warfarin but also for NOACs. Although there is an apparent improvement in thromboprophylaxis of NVAF, much more effort is needed for appropriate use of OACs.

A b s t r a c tBackground: Indirect evidences suggest that the I f blocker ivabradine may exert an antiarrhythmic effect in ventricular myocardium in heart failure (HF) patients by inhibiting spontaneous depolarisations, but the clinical relevance of this mechanism is not known. Dobutamine (DOB) has been known to increase heart rate and the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias. Aim:In this study, we evaluated the effects of ivabradine on DOB-induced ventricular arrhythmias and compared them with those of beta-blocker (BB) therapy. Methods:Patients with decompensated HF requiring inotropic support, left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%, and in sinus rhythm were included in the study (ivabradine group -29 patients, control group -29 patients, BB group -15 patients). All patients underwent Holter recording for 6 h before the initiation of DOB infusion. Following baseline recording, DOB was administered at incremental doses of 5, 10, and 15 µg/kg/min, with 6-h steps. Holter monitoring was continued during 18 h of DOB infusion and analysed for the median number of ventricular premature contractions (VPC), ventricular couplets, episodes of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, and total ventricular arrhythmias in each step of the study protocol. Results:The positive chronotropic effect of incremental DOB doses was blunted by beta-blockade and was totally abolished by ivabradine. The median number of VPCs, ventricular couplets, and total ventricular arrhythmias significantly increased with incremental doses of DOB in the control group (p = 0.018) and, to a lesser extent, in the ivabradine group (p = 0.015). In the BB group the absolute VPCs numbers were smaller than in the control or the ivabradine group, with the on-ivabradine VPCs numbers falling between those seen in control and BB groups. A numeric increase in VPCs with incremental DOB doses occurred in the BB group but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05), consistent with a protective effect of beta-blockade. Ivabradine reduced VPCs by 43% at 5 µg/kg/min DOB and by 38% at 10 µg/kg/min DOB against the control group (VPCs median 256 vs. 147 and 251 vs. 158) in the absence of significant differences at 15 µg/kg/min DOB between the control and ivabradine groups (overall p > 0.05). Thus, ivabradine administered without background beta-blockade attenuated the arrhythmogenic effect of increasing doses of DOB in the low and moderate DOB dose but not in the high DOB dose. Conclusions:In patients with decompensated HF, ivabradine appears to reduce the incidence of VPCs in response to low and medium DOB dose. Whether the anti-arrhythmic effect of ivabradine is additive to the anti-arrhythmic effect of beta-blockade requires further investigation; this should also determine the clinical significance of ventricular arrhythmia attenuation with ivabradine.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: There are lack of studies considering the suboptimal management of dyslipidemia especially in cardiology outpatient clinics. This study was conducted to assess the patient adherence to cholesterol treatment recommendations and attainment of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals.Methods: EPHESUS (NCT02608645) is a national, observational and multicenter registry which has been designed as a cross-sectional study to allow inclusion of all consecutive patients with hypercholesterolemia in cardiology outpatient clinics.The present subgroup analyses of the EPHESUS trial included patients with known peripheral artery disease or atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease, and coronary heart disease namely secondary prevention. Results:The present analysis of the EPHESUS study included 1482 patients (62.79 ± 10.4 years, 38.2% female) with secondary prevention from 40 sites in Turkey.Regarding recommended lipid targets for LDL-C, only 267 patients (18%) were below the target of 70 mg/dL. Females were significantly more off-target when compared with male patients (396, 85.5% vs 67, 14.5%; P = 0.017). Moreover, the achievement of LDL-C goal was significantly decreased with illiteracy (233, 19.2% vs 35, 13.1%; P = 0.02). Patients who think that the cholesterol treatment should be terminated when the cholesterol level of a patient has normalised were higher in the off-target group (34.0% vs 24.7%, P < 0.001). Besides, physician perceptions about LDL-C goal for secondary prevention were significantly related with LDL-C target attainment. Conclusions:EPHESUS is an important study with large population in terms of representing real-life practice of the adherence to dyslipidemia guidelines in secondary prevention patients in Turkey. Perceptions, knowledge, and compliance with the guidelines for secondary prevention have increased, but it is far below from the

No abstract

No abstract

Background and aims Effective treatment of high low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) levels has been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Herein, we aimed to provide insight to the real‐life management of patients with DM in terms of LDL‐C goal attainment and adherence to lipid management recommendations. Our objective was also to reveal the reasons of poor LDL‐C goal attainment by assessing the perceptions of both physicians and patients. Methods We compared the diabetic and non‐diabetic patients from the database of a nationwide registry conducted in cardiology outpatient clinics with regard to the demographic characteristics, educational status, comorbidities, medications, laboratory parameters and LDL‐C goal attainment. Also, both the patients and attending physicians were surveyed to analyse perceptions and awareness of hypercholesterolemia. Results Of the 1868 consecutively enrolled patients, 873 (47%) had DM. Proportion of patients on statins was significantly lower in patients with DM (67.8% vs 55.3%; P < .001). The proportion of patients who attained LDL‐C targets were lower among the diabetic patients (17.8% vs 15%; P = .06). The most common causes of the discontinuation of statin therapy were negative media coverage about statins (32.1%), and recommendations of physicians to stop the lipid lowering therapy (29.6%). Analysis of the physician survey revealed that the physicians could determine the off‐target patients accurately (negative predictive value 98.4%) while the positive predictive value (48.8%) was low. The reasons for not attaining the LDL‐C goals in diabetic patients were not prescription of statins (38%) and inadequate (eg low‐dose, non‐adherent) statin (28.3%) dosages. Conclusions In real‐life clinical cardiology practice, diabetic patients are far below the recommended LDL‐C treatment goals. High‐intensity statin treatment in diabetic population is still avoided because of the concerns about polypharmacy and drug interactions. Also, the inertia of physicians and even cardiologists is probably a major cause of refraining of prescription of optimal statin dosages.