Background— There is a paucity of international data on the various types of atrial fibrillation (AF) outside the highly selected populations from randomized trials. This study aimed to describe patient characteristics, risk factors, comorbidities, symptoms, management strategy, and control of different types of AF in real-life practice. Methods and Results— Real-life global survey evaluating patients with atrial fibrillation (RealiseAF) was a contemporary, large-scale, cross-sectional international survey of patients with AF who had ≥1 episode in the past 12 months. Investigators were randomly selected to avoid bias. Among 9816 eligible patients from 831 sites in 26 countries, 2606 (26.5%) had paroxysmal, 2341 (23.8%) had persistent, and 4869 (49.6%) had permanent AF. As AF progressed from paroxysmal to persistent and permanent forms, the prevalence of comorbidities, such as heart failure (32.9%, 44.3%, and 55.6%), coronary artery disease (30.0%, 32.9%, and 34.3%), cerebrovascular disease (11.7%, 10.8%, and 17.6%), and valvular disease (16.7%, 21.2%, and 35.8%), increased, and the prevalence of lone AF decreased. Similarly, there was an increase in mean CHADS 2 [cardiac failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke (doubled)] score (1.7, 1.8, and 2.2), and more than half of patients (51.0%, 56.7%, and 67.3%) qualified for oral anticoagulants. Almost 90% of patients received ≥1 antiarrhythmic drug, but >60% had European Heart Rhythm Association symptom scores from II to IV. Furthermore, 40.7% of persistent and 49.8% of permanent AF patients were still in AF with a heart rate >80 beats per minute. Conclusions— This survey disclosed high cardiovascular risks and an unmet need in daily practice for patients with any type of AF, especially those with the permanent form.

AF control is not optimal. Control appears to be associated with fewer symptoms and better QoL, but even patients with controlled AF have frequent symptoms, functional impairment, altered QoL and cardiovascular events. New treatments are needed to improve control and minimise the functional and QoL burden of AF.

Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a transient increased risk of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. We hypothesized that dabigatran can be safely used as an alternative to continuous warfarin for the peri-procedural anticoagulation in PVI. Methods and Results 999 consecutive patients undergoing PVI were included; 376 patients were on dabigatran (150 mg) and 623 were on warfarin with therapeutic INR. Dabigatran was held 1 to 2 doses prior to PVI and restarted at the conclusion of the procedure or as soon as patients were transferred to the nursing floor. Propensity score matching was applied to generate a cohort of 344 patients in each group with balanced baseline data. Total hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications were similar in both groups, before (3.2% vs 3.9%; p = 0.59), and after (3.2% vs 4.1%; p = 0.53) matching. Major hemorrhage occurred in 1.1% vs 1.6% (p = 0.48) before, and 1.2% vs 1.5% (p = 0.74) after matching in the dabigatran vs warfarin group respectively. A single thromboembolic event occurred in each of the dabigatran and warfarin groups. Despite higher doses of intra-procedural heparin, the mean ACT was significantly lower in patients who held dabigatran for 1 or 2 doses than those on warfarin. Conclusions Our study found no evidence to suggest a higher risk of thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications with use of dabigatran for peri-procedural anticoagulation in patients undergoing PVI compared to uninterrupted warfarin therapy.

The 143 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) of the world constitute 80% of the world’s population or roughly 5.86 billion people with much variation in geography, culture, literacy, financial resources, access to health care, insurance penetration, and healthcare regulation. Unfortunately, their burden of cardiovascular disease in general and acute ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in particular is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Compounding the problem, outcomes remain suboptimal because of a lack of awareness and a severe paucity of resources. Guideline-based treatment has dramatically improved the outcomes of STEMI in high-income countries. However, no such focused recommendations exist for LMICs, and the unique challenges in LMICs make directly implementing Western guidelines unfeasible. Thus, structured solutions tailored to their individual, local needs, and resources are a vital need. With this in mind, a multicountry collaboration of investigators interested in LMIC STEMI care have tried to create a consensus document that extracts transferable elements from Western guidelines and couples them with local realities gathered from expert experience. It outlines general operating principles for LMICs focused best practices and is intended to create the broad outlines of implementable, resource-appropriate paradigms for management of STEMI in LMICs. Although this document is focused primarily on governments and organizations involved with improvement in STEMI care in LMICs, it also provides some specific targeted information for the frontline clinicians to allow standardized care pathways and improved outcomes.