Atrial fibrillation (AF) has heterogeneous patterns of presentation concerning symptoms, duration of episodes, AF burden, and the tendency to progress towards the terminal step of permanent AF. AF is associated with a risk of stroke/thromboembolism traditionally considered dependent on patient-level risk factors rather than AF type, AF burden or other characterizations. However, the time spent in AF appears related to an incremental risk of stroke, as suggested by the higher risk of stroke in patients with clinical AF versus subclinical episodes and in patients with non-paroxysmal AF versus paroxysmal AF. In patients with device-detected atrial tachyarrhythmias, AF burden is a dynamic process with potential transitions from a lower to a higher maximum daily arrhythmia burden, thus justifying monitoring its temporal evolution. In clinical terms, the appearance of the first episode of AF, the characterization of the arrhythmia in a specific AF type, the progression of AF, and the response to rhythm control therapies, as well as the clinical outcomes, are all conditioned by underlying heart disease, risk factors, and comorbidities. Improved understanding is needed on how to monitor and modulate the effect of factors that condition AF susceptibility and modulate AF-associated outcomes. The increasing use of wearables and apps in practice and clinical research may be useful to predict and quantify AF burden and assess AF susceptibility at the individual patient level. This may help us reveal why AF stops and starts again, or why AF episodes, or burden, cluster. Additionally, whether the distribution of burden is associated with variations in the propensity to thrombosis or other clinical adverse events. Combining the improved methods for data analysis, clinical and translational science could be the basis for the early identification of the subset of patients at risk of progressing to a longer duration/higher burden of AF and the associated adverse outcomes.

No abstract

Funding informationNo funding has been received in the preparation of this manuscript. AstraZeneca provided datasets for the analysis. AstraZeneca was never involved in any stage of manuscript drafting and preparation.

No abstract

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of telemedicine has represented a new potential option for outpatient care. Purpose The aim of our study was to evaluate digital literacy among cardiology outpatients. Methods From March to June 2020 a survey on telehealth among cardiology outpatients was performed. Digital literacy was investigated through six main domains: age; sex; educational level; Internet access; availability of Internet sources; knowledge and use of teleconference software programs. Results The study included 1067 patients, median age 79 years, 41.3% females. The majority of the patients (58.0%) had a secondary school degree, but among patients aged ≥75 years old the most represented educational level was primary school or none. Overall, for Internet access, there was a splitting between “never” (42.1%) and “every day” (41.0%), while only 2.7% answered “at least 1/month” and 14.2% “at least 1/week”. In the total population, the most used devices for Internet access were smartphones (59.0%), and WhatsApp represented the most used app (57.3%). Internet users were younger compared to non-Internet users (63 versus 78 years old, respectively) and with a higher educational level. Age and educational level were associated with non-use of Internet (age-per 10-year increase odds ratio [OR] 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.54–3.71, secondary school OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12–0.26, university OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02–0.10) (Figure 1). Conclusions Telemedicine represents an appealing option to implement medical practice, and for its development it is important to address the gaps in patients' digital skills, with age and educational level being key factors in this setting. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. Factors associated with Internet non-use

No abstract

Our aim was to assess the prevalence of unknown atrial fibrillation (AF) among adults during single-time point rhythm screening performed during meetings or social recreational activities organized by patient groups or volunteers. A total of 2814 subjects (median age 68 years) underwent AF screening by a handheld single-lead ECG device (MyDiagnostick). Overall, 56 subjects (2.0%) were diagnosed with AF, as a result of 12-lead ECG following a positive/suspected recording. Screening identified AF in 2.9% of the subjects ≥ 65 years. None of the 265 subjects aged below 50 years was found positive at AF screening. Risk stratification for unknown AF based on a CHA2DS2VASc > 0 in males and >1 in females (or CHA2DS2VA > 0) had a high sensitivity (98.2%) and a high negative predictive value (99.8%) for AF detection. A slightly lower sensitivity (96.4%) was achieved by using age ≥ 65 years as a risk stratifier. Conversely, raising the threshold at ≥75 years showed a low sensitivity. Within the subset of subjects aged ≥ 65 a CHA2DS2VASc > 1 in males and >2 in females, or a CHA2DS2VA > 1 had a high sensitivity (94.4%) and negative predictive value (99.3%), while age ≥ 75 was associated with a marked drop in sensitivity for AF detection.

Background: In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, the presence of symptoms can guide the decision between rate or rhythm control therapy, but it is still unclear if AF-related outcomes are determined by symptomatic status of their clinical presentation. Methods: We performed a systematic review and metanalysis following the PRISMA recommendations on available studies that compared asymptomatic to symptomatic AF reporting data on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and thromboembolic events (TEs). We included studies with a total number of patients enrolled equal to or greater than 200, with a minimum follow-up period of six months. Results: From the initial 5476 results retrieved after duplicates’ removal, a total of 10 studies were selected. Overall, 81,462 patients were included, of which 21,007 (26%) were asymptomatic, while 60,455 (74%) were symptomatic. No differences were found between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients regarding the risks of all-cause death (odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–1.32), and cardiovascular death (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54–1.39). No differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic groups were evident for stroke (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77–1.93) and stroke/TE (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86–1.31) risks. Conclusions: Mortality and stroke/TE events in AF patients were unrelated to symptomatic status of their clinical presentation. Adoption of management strategies in AF patients should not be based on symptomatic clinical status.