Terms of useThis work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark through the SDU Research Portal. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply:• You may download this work for personal use only.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med nejm.org

While management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients is improved by guideline-conform application of anticoagulant therapy, rate control, rhythm control, and therapy of accompanying heart disease, the morbidity and mortality associated with AF remain unacceptably high. This paper describes the proceedings of the 3rd Atrial Fibrillation NETwork (AFNET)/European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus conference that convened over 60 scientists and representatives from industry to jointly discuss emerging therapeutic and diagnostic improvements to achieve better management of AF patients. The paper covers four chapters: (i) risk factors and risk markers for AF; (ii) pathophysiological classification of AF; (iii) relevance of monitored AF duration for AF-related outcomes; and (iv) perspectives and needs for implementing better antithrombotic therapy. Relevant published literature for each section is covered, and suggestions for the improvement of management in each area are put forward. Combined, the propositions formulate a perspective to implement comprehensive management in AF.

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.

Background: Even on optimal therapy, many patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation experience cardiovascular complications. Additional treatments are needed to reduce these events, especially in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This prespecified subanalysis of the randomized EAST - AFNET 4 trial assessed the effect of systematic, early rhythm control therapy (ERC; using antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation) compared to usual care (UC, allowing rhythm control therapy to improve symptoms) on the two primary outcomes of the trial and on selected secondary outcomes in patients with heart failure, defined as heart failure symptoms NYHA II-III or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%. Results: This analysis included 798 patients (300 (37.6%) female, median age 71.0 [64.0, 76.0] years, 785 with known LVEF). The majority of patients (n=442) had HFpEF (LVEF≥50%; mean LVEF 61% ± 6.3%), the others had heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (n=211; LVEF40-49%; mean LVEF 44% ± 2.9%) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=132; LVEF<40%; mean LVEF 31% ± 5.5%). Over the 5.1-year median follow-up, the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure or for acute coronary syndrome occurred less often in patients randomized to ERC (94/396; 5.7 per 100 patient-years) compared with patients randomized to UC (130/402; 7.9 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.74 [0.56-0.97], p=0.03), not altered by heart failure status (interaction p-value=0.63). The primary safety outcome (death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy) occurred in 71/396 (17.9%) heart failure patients randomized to ERC and in 87/402 (21.6%) heart failure patients randomized to UC (hazard ratio 0.85 [0.62-1.17], p=0.33). LV ejection fraction improved in both groups (LVEF change at two years: ERC 5.3%±11.6%, UC 4.9%±11.6%, p=0.43). ERC also improved the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure. Conclusions: Rhythm control therapy conveys clinical benefit when initiated within one year of diagnosing atrial fibrillation in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: Unique Identifiers: ISRCTN04708680, NCT01288352, EudraCT2010-021258-20, Study web site www.easttrial.org; URLs: www.controlled-trials.com; https://clinicaltrials.gov; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu

The management of atrial fibrillation (AF) has seen marked changes in past years, with the introduction of new oral anticoagulants, new antiarrhythmic drugs, and the emergence of catheter ablation as a common intervention for rhythm control. Furthermore, new technologies enhance our ability to detect AF. Most clinical management decisions in AF patients can be based on validated parameters that encompass type of presentation, clinical factors, electrocardiogram analysis, and cardiac imaging. Despite these advances, patients with AF are still at increased risk for death, stroke, heart failure, and hospitalizations. During the fourth Atrial Fibrillation competence NETwork/European Heart Rhythm Association (AFNET/EHRA) consensus conference, we identified the following opportunities to personalize management of AF in a better manner with a view to improve outcomes by integrating atrial morphology and damage, brain imaging, information on genetic predisposition, systemic or local inflammation, and markers for cardiac strain. Each of these promising avenues requires validation in the context of existing risk factors in patients. More importantly, a new taxonomy of AF may be needed based on the pathophysiological type of AF to allow personalized management of AF to come to full fruition. Continued translational research efforts are needed to personalize management of this prevalent disease in a better manner. All the efforts are expected to improve the management of patients with AF based on personalized therapy.

A rrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia (ARVC/D) is an inherited disease characterized by a progressive fibrofatty replacement mainly involving the RV myocardium. It is associated with ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death (SCD). 1-6Clinical Perspective on p 239 RV dilation, reduced RV systolic function, and diffuse RV involvement have previously been studied as predictors of an adverse outcome in patients with ARVC/D but have yielded conflicting results possibly because of divergent imaging modalities, varying parameters measured, and heterogeneous patient cohorts. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Data about the predictive role of RV fractional area change (FAC) in ARVC/D as measured by 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (2D TTE) are scarce and controversial. 9,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) can easily be determined by M-mode TTE. It is a robust parameter for

Recent innovations have the potential to improve rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Controlled trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness and safety of rhythm control therapy, particularly in patients with AF and heart failure. This review summarizes evidence supporting the use of rhythm control therapy in patients with AF for different outcomes, discusses implications for indications, and highlights remaining clinical gaps in evidence. Rhythm control therapy improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with symptomatic AF and can be safely delivered in elderly patients with comorbidities (mean age 70 years, 3–7% complications at 1 year). Atrial fibrillation ablation maintains sinus rhythm more effectively than antiarrhythmic drug therapy, but recurrent AF remains common, highlighting the need for better patient selection (precision medicine). Antiarrhythmic drugs remain effective after AF ablation, underpinning the synergistic mechanisms of action of AF ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. Atrial fibrillation ablation appears to improve left ventricular function in a subset of patients with AF and heart failure. Data on the prognostic effect of rhythm control therapy are heterogeneous without a clear signal for either benefit or harm. Rhythm control therapy has acceptable safety and improves quality of life in patients with symptomatic AF, including in elderly populations with stroke risk factors. There is a clinical need to better stratify patients for rhythm control therapy. Further studies are needed to determine whether rhythm control therapy, and particularly AF ablation, improves left ventricular function and reduces AF-related complications.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is now an important therapeutic modality for patients with AF. There is considerable evidence available from several prospective randomized trials demonstrating that catheter ablation of AF is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in controlling AF and that AF ablation improves quality of life substantially. This is especially true for patients with paroxysmal AF without other severe comorbidities. Catheter ablation is indicated for treatment of patients with symptomatic AF in whom one or more attempts at class 1 or 3 antiarrhythmic drug therapy have failed. Although current guidelines state that is appropriate to perform catheter ablation as a first-line therapy in selected patients, in our clinical practice this is rare. This reflects a number of important realities concerning the field of AF ablation. Catheter ablation of AF is a challenging and complex procedure, which is not free of the risk of potentially life-threatening complications, such as an atrio-oesophageal fistula, stroke, and cardiac tamponade. Although these major complications are rare and their rate is falling, they must be considered by both patients and physicians. The progress made and the new developments on the horizon in the field of AF catheter ablation are remarkable. When radiofrequency catheter ablation was first introduced in the late 1980s, few would have predicted that catheter ablation of AF would emerge as the most commonly performed ablation procedure in most major hospitals.