The current manuscript is the second update of the original Practical Guide, published in 2013 [Heidbuchel et al. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-651; Heidbuchel et al. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1467-1507]. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have emerged as the preferred choice, particularly in patients newly started on anticoagulation. Both physicians and patients are becoming more accustomed to the use of these drugs in clinical practice. However, many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these agents in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group identified 20 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 20 topics are as follows i.e., (1) Eligibility for NOACs; (2) Practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (3) Ensuring adherence to prescribed oral anticoagulant intake; (4) Switching between anticoagulant regimens; (5) Pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of NOACs; (6) NOACs in patients with chronic kidney or advanced liver disease; (7) How to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (8) NOAC plasma level measurement: rare indications, precautions, and potential pitfalls; (9) How to deal with dosing errors; (10) What to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a potential risk of bleeding; (11) Management of bleeding under NOAC therapy; (12) Patients undergoing a planned invasive procedure, surgery or ablation; (13) Patients requiring an urgent surgical intervention; (14) Patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (15) Avoiding confusion with NOAC dosing across indications; (16) Cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (17) AF patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; (18) NOACs in special situations; (19) Anticoagulation in AF patients with a malignancy; and (20) Optimizing dose adjustments of VKA. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in different languages can be found on an EHRA website (www.NOACforAF.eu).
Background Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The “Atrial fibrillation Better Care” (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We analyzed the impact of the ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analyzed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty (according to a 40-items Frailty Index), multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on the risk of all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and the composite outcome of all-cause death and MACE was analyzed through Cox-regression analyses, and delay of event (DoE) analyses; number needed to treat (NNT) was also estimated at 1 year of follow-up. Results Among 9,966 AF patients, 8,289 (92.3%) were clinically complex. Risk of all outcomes was higher among clinically complex patient. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.71, 95% CI 0.57–0.89), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, aHR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57–0.84). Using cluster analysis, we identified a high clinical complexity group of AF patients. Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.96) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.84) in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all-cause death (Figure 1), MACEs, and composite outcome in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the NNTs for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes amongst clinically complex AF patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Since the start of EORP, several companies have supported the programme with unrestricted grants.
Introduction Frailty is a major health determinant for cardiovascular disease. Thus far, data on frailty in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are limited. Aims To evaluate frailty in a large contemporary cohort of European AF patients, the relationship with oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription and with risk of all-cause death. Methods We analyzed patients enrolled in the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry. A 38-items frailty index (FI) was derived from baseline characteristics according to the accumulation of deficits model proposed by Rockwood and Mitnitsky. All-cause mortality was the primary study outcome. Results Out of the 11096 AF enrolled patients, data for evaluating frailty were available for 6557 (59.1%) patients who have been included in this analysis (mean [SD] age 68.9 [11.5], 37.7% females). Baseline median [IQR] CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED were 3 [2–4] and 1 [1–2], respectively. At baseline, median [IQR] FI was 0.16 (0.12–0.23), with 1276 (19.5%) patients considered “not-frail” (FI<0.10), 4033 (61.5%) considered “pre-frail” (FI 0.10–0.25) and 1248 (19.0%) considered “frail” (FI≥0.25). Age, female prevalence, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED progressively increased across the FI classes (all p<0.001). Use of OAC progressively increased among FI classes; after adjustments FI was not associated with OAC prescription (odds ratio [OR]: 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98–1.19 for each 0.10 FI increase). Conversely, FI was directly associated with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) use (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.18–1.34 for each 0.10 FI increase) and inversely associated with non-VKA OACs (NOACs) use (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77–0.88). FI was significantly correlated with CHA2DS2-VASc (Rho= 0.516, p<0.001). Over a median [IQR] follow-up of 731 [704–749] days, there were 569 (8.7%) all-cause death events. Kaplan-Meier curves [Figure] showed an increasing cumulative risk for all-cause death according to FI categories. A Cox multivariable analysis, adjusted for age, sex, type of AF and use of OAC, found that increasing FI as a continuous variable was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.40–1.73 for each 0.10 FI increase). An association with all-cause death risk was found across the FI categories (HR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.23–2.38 and HR: 2.88, 95% CI: 2.02–4.12, respectively for pre-frail and frail patients compared to non-frail ones). FI was also predictive of all-cause death (c-index: 0.660, 95% CI: 0.637–0.682; p<0.001). Conclusions In a European contemporary cohort of AF patients the burden of frailty is significant, with almost 1 out of 5 patients found to be “frail”. Frailty influenced significantly the choice of OAC therapy and was associated with (and predictive of) all-cause death at follow-up. Kaplan-Meier Curves Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Since the start of EORP programme, several companies have supported it with unrestricted grants.
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening has the potential to increase early detection and possibly reduce complications of AF. Guidelines recommend screening, but the most appropriate approaches are unknown. Purpose We aimed to explore the views of stakeholders across Europe about the opportunities and challenges of implementing four different AF screening scenarios. Method This qualitative study included 21 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals and regulators potentially involved in AF screening implementation in nine European countries. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three themes evolved. 1) Current approaches to screening: there are no national AF screening programmes, with most AF detected in symptomatic patients. Patient-led screening exists via personal devices, creating screening inequity by the reach of screening programmes being limited to those who access healthcare services. 2) Feasibility of screening approaches: single time point opportunistic screening in primary care using single lead ECG devices was considered the most feasible approach and AF screening may be possible in previously unexplored settings such as dentists and podiatrists. Software algorithms may aid identification of patients suitable for screening and telehealth services have the potential to support diagnosis. However, there is a need for advocacy to encourage the use of telehealth to aid AF diagnosis, and training for screening familiarisation and troubleshooting. 3) Implementation requirements: sufficient evidence of benefit is required. National rather than pan-European screening processes must be developed due to different payment mechanisms and health service regulations. There is concern that the rapid spread of wearable devices for heart rate monitoring may increase workload due to false positives in low risk populations for AF. Data security and inclusivity for those without access to primary care or personal devices must be addressed. Conclusions There is an overall awareness of AF screening. Opportunistic screening appears to be most feasible across Europe. Challenges that need to be addressed concern health inequalities, identification of best target groups for screening, streamlined processes, the need for evidence of benefit, and a tailored approach adapted to national realities. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): H2020 Screening Scenarios Graphical abstract
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening has the potential to increase early detection and possibly reduce complications of AF. Guidelines recommend screening, but the most appropriate approaches are unknown. Purpose We aimed to explore the views of stakeholders across Europe about the opportunities and challenges of implementing four different AF screening scenarios. Method This qualitative study included 21 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals and regulators potentially involved in AF screening implementation in nine European countries. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three themes evolved. 1) Current approaches to screening: there are no national AF screening programmes, with most AF detected in symptomatic patients. Patient-led screening exists via personal devices, creating screening inequity by the reach of screening programmes being limited to those who access healthcare services. 2) Feasibility of screening approaches: single time point opportunistic screening in primary care using single lead ECG devices was considered the most feasible approach and AF screening may be possible in previously unexplored settings such as dentists and podiatrists. Software algorithms may aid identification of patients suitable for screening and telehealth services have the potential to support diagnosis. However, there is a need for advocacy to encourage the use of telehealth to aid AF diagnosis, and training for screening familiarisation and troubleshooting. 3) Implementation requirements: sufficient evidence of benefit is required. National rather than pan-European screening processes must be developed due to different payment mechanisms and health service regulations. There is concern that the rapid spread of wearable devices for heart rate monitoring may increase workload due to false positives in low risk populations for AF. Data security and inclusivity for those without access to primary care or personal devices must be addressed. Conclusions There is an overall awareness of AF screening. Opportunistic screening appears to be most feasible across Europe. Challenges that need to be addressed concern health inequalities, identification of best target groups for screening, streamlined processes, the need for evidence of benefit, and a tailored approach adapted to national realities. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): H2020 Screening Scenarios Graphical abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.