BACKGROUNDPatients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation commonly undergo immediate restoration of sinus rhythm by pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion. However, whether immediate restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary is not known, since atrial fibrillation often terminates spontaneously. METHODSIn a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with hemodynamically stable, recent-onset (<36 hours), symptomatic atrial fibrillation in the emergency department to be treated with a wait-and-see approach (delayed-cardioversion group) or early cardioversion. The wait-and-see approach involved initial treatment with rate-control medication only and delayed cardioversion if the atrial fibrillation did not resolve within 48 hours. The primary end point was the presence of sinus rhythm at 4 weeks. Noninferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference in the primary end point in percentage points was more than −10. RESULTSThe presence of sinus rhythm at 4 weeks occurred in 193 of 212 patients (91%) in the delayed-cardioversion group and in 202 of 215 (94%) in the early-cardioversion group (between-group difference, −2.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −8.2 to 2.2; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). In the delayed-cardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm within 48 hours occurred spontaneously in 150 of 218 patients (69%) and after delayed cardioversion in 61 patients (28%). In the earlycardioversion group, conversion to sinus rhythm occurred spontaneously before the initiation of cardioversion in 36 of 219 patients (16%) and after cardioversion in 171 patients (78%). Among the patients who completed remote monitoring during 4 weeks of follow-up, a recurrence of atrial fibrillation occurred in 49 of 164 patients (30%) in the delayed-cardioversion group and in 50 of 171 (29%) in the earlycardioversion group. Within 4 weeks after randomization, cardiovascular complications occurred in 10 patients and 8 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONSIn patients presenting to the emergency department with recent-onset, symptomatic atrial fibrillation, a wait-and-see approach was noninferior to early cardioversion in achieving a return to sinus rhythm at 4 weeks. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; RACE 7 ACWAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02248753.

Recurrent pericarditis has an overall favourable prognosis in children, although it may require frequent readmissions and seriously affect the quality of life, especially in patients treated with corticosteroids. Colchicine or anakinra therapies were associated with significant decrease in the risk of recurrence.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, outpatient visits in the atrial fibrillation (AF) clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+) were transferred into teleconsultations. The aim was to develop anon-demand app-based heart rate and rhythm monitoring infrastructure to allow appropriatmanagement of AF through teleconsultation. In line with the fundamental aspects of integrated care, including actively involving patients in the care process and providing comprehensive care by a multidisciplinary team, we implemented a mobile health (mHealth) intervention to support teleconsultations with AF patients: TeleCheck-AF. The TeleCheck-AF approach guarantees the continuity of comprehensive AF management and supports integrated care through teleconsultation during COVID-19. It incorporates three important components: (i) a structured teleconsultation (‘Tele’), (ii) a CE-marked app-based on-demand heart rate and rhythm monitoring infrastructure (‘Check’), and (iii) comprehensive AF management (‘AF’). In this article, we describe the components and implementation of the TeleCheck-AF approach in an integrated and specialized AF-clinic through teleconsultation. The TeleCheck-AF approach is currently implemented in numerous European centres during COVID-19.

Background Nurse-led integrated care is expected to improve outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation compared with usual-care provided by a medical specialist. Methods and results We randomized 1375 patients with atrial fibrillation (64 ± 10 years, 44% women, 57% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2) to receive nurse-led care or usual-care. Nurse-led care was provided by specialized nurses using a decision-support tool, in consultation with the cardiologist. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and cardiovascular hospital admissions. Of 671 nurse-led care patients, 543 (81%) received anticoagulation in full accordance with the guidelines against 559 of 683 (82%) usual-care patients. The cumulative adherence to guidelines-based recommendations was 61% under nurse-led care and 26% under usual-care. Over 37 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 164 of 671 patients (9.7% per year) under nurse-led care and in 192 of 683 patients (11.6% per year) under usual-care [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.04, P = 0.12]. There were 124 vs. 161 hospitalizations for arrhythmia events (7.0% and 9.4% per year), and 14 vs. 22 for heart failure (0.7% and 1.1% per year), respectively. Results were not consistent in a pre-specified subgroup analysis by centre experience, with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.37–to 0.71) in four experienced centres and of 1.24 (95% CI 0.94–1.63) in four less experienced centres (P for interaction <0.001). Conclusion Our trial failed to show that nurse-led care was superior to usual-care. The data suggest that nurse-led care by an experienced team could be clinically beneficial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01740037). Trial Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740037).

Aims TeleCheck-AF is a multicentre international project initiated to maintain care delivery for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) during COVID-19 through teleconsultations supported by an on-demand photoplethysmography-based heart rate and rhythm monitoring app (FibriCheck®). We describe the characteristics, inclusion rates, and experiences from participating centres according the TeleCheck-AF infrastructure as well as characteristics and experiences from recruited patients. Methods and results Three surveys exploring centre characteristics (n = 25), centre experiences (n = 23), and patient experiences (n = 826) were completed. Self-reported patient characteristics were obtained from the app. Most centres were academic (64%) and specialized public cardiology/district hospitals (36%). Majority of the centres had AF outpatient clinics (64%) and only 36% had AF ablation clinics. The time required to start patient inclusion and total number of included patients in the project was comparable for centres experienced (56%) or inexperienced in mHealth use. Within 28 weeks, 1930 AF patients were recruited, mainly for remote AF control (31% of patients) and AF ablation follow-up (42%). Average inclusion rate was highest during the lockdown restrictions and reached a steady state at a lower level after easing the restrictions (188 vs. 52 weekly recruited patients). Majority (&gt;80%) of the centres reported no problems during the implementation of the TeleCheck-AF approach. Recruited patients [median age 64 (55–71), 62% male] agreed that the FibriCheck® app was easy to use (94%). Conclusion Despite different health care settings and mobile health experiences, the TeleCheck-AF approach could be set up within an extremely short time and easily used in different European centres during COVID-19.

A European mHealth project to facilitate atrial fibrillation management through teleconsultation during COVID19During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, traditional faceto-face consultations in atrial fibrillation (AF) outpatient clinics were rapidly transferred into teleconsultations, which were initially conducted without any information on heart rhythm or heart rate of the patients. To guarantee the continuity of comprehensive AF

Aim We aimed to systematically review the available literature on mobile Health (mHealth) solutions, including handheld and wearable devices, implantable loop recorders (ILRs), as well as mobile platforms and support systems in atrial fibrillation (AF) detection and management. Methods This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed (NCBI), Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane were searched for articles published until 10 February 2021, inclusive. Given that the included studies varied widely in their design, interventions, comparators, and outcomes, no synthesis was undertaken, and we undertook a narrative review. Results We found 208 studies, which were deemed potentially relevant. Of these studies included, 82, 46, and 49 studies aimed at validating handheld devices, wearables, and ILRs for AF detection and/or management, respectively, while 34 studies assessed mobile platforms/support systems. The diagnostic accuracy of mHealth solutions differs with respect to the type (handheld devices vs wearables vs ILRs) and technology used (electrocardiography vs photoplethysmography), as well as application setting (intermittent vs continuous, spot vs longitudinal assessment), and study population. Conclusion While the use of mHealth solutions in the detection and management of AF is becoming increasingly popular, its clinical implications merit further investigation and several barriers to widespread mHealth adaption in healthcare systems need to be overcome. Graphic abstract Mobile health solutions for atrial fibrillation detection and management: a systematic review.

Background: Although novel teleconsultation solutions can deliver remote situations that are relatively similar to face-to-face interaction, remote assessment of heart rate and rhythm as well as risk factors remains challenging in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Hypothesis. Mobile health (mHealth) solutions can support remote AF management. Methods: Herein, we discuss available mHealth tools and strategies on how to incorporate the remote assessment of heart rate, rhythm and risk factors to allow comprehensive AF management through teleconsultation. Results: Particularly, in the light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is decreased capacity to see patients in the outpatient clinic and mHealth has become an important component of many AF outpatient clinics. Several validated mHealth solutions are available for remote heart rate and rhythm monitoring as well as for risk factor assessment. mHealth technologies can be used for (semi-)continuous longitudinal monitoring or for short-term on-demand monitoring, dependent on the respective requirements and clinical scenarios. As a possible solution to improve remote AF care through teleconsultation, we introduce the on-demand TeleCheck-AF mHealth approach that allows remote app-based assessment of heart rate and rhythm around teleconsultations, which has been developed and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Conclusion: Large scale international mHealth projects, such as TeleCheck-AF, will provide insight into the additional value and potential limitations of mHealth strategies to remotely manage AF patients. Such mHealth infrastructures may be well suited within an integrated AF-clinic, which may require redesign of practice and reform of health care systems. How to cite this article: Hermans ANL, van der Velden RMJ, Gawalko M, et al. On-demand mobile health infrastructures to allow comprehensive remote atrial fibrillation and risk factor management through teleconsultation.