August 2012 Br J Cardiol 2012;19:122–3 doi:10.5837/bjc.2012.020
A consensus position statement. A John Camm, Chris Arden, Anna-Maria Choy, Riyaz A Kaba, David Keane, Khalid Khan, Ernest Lau, Gregory Y H Lip, Francis Murgatroyd, G Andre Ng, Nicholas Peters, Henry Purcell, Peter Stafford, Neil Sulke, Helen Williams
Abstract
Introduction
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) can benefit from rhythm management to improve unpleasant symptoms or increase exercise capacity,1 making anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) an important option in the management of AF. The benefits of any AAD must be weighed against the risks of adverse effects, which in some cases are serious. Defined indications for the use of AADs have been developed by regulatory bodies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which, in addition to guidelines from groups such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the European So
|
Full text
May 2012
Abstract
Click to read the full article
|
Full text
April 2011 Br J Cardiol 2011;18:88−93
Scott Doyle, Andrew Lloyd, Mark Davis
Abstract
Introduction
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia affecting approximately six million patients in Europe and 2.3 million in the USA.1 Estimates in the general population suggest a prevalence rate of 0.4–1.0%, with marked increase in prevalence with age, increasing to approximately 10% by the age of 80 years.2 AF can precipitate heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, and it is associated with a four- to five-fold increase in chance of stroke.3,4 In addition, although AF is frequently asymptomatic, it can reduce quality of life causing fatigue, palpitations, anxiety and dizziness.3
AF is classified in three ways:5
Paroxy
|
Full text
September 2003 Br J Cardiol 2003;10:329-31
Mike Mead
Abstract
No content available
|
Full text
