Tag Archives: atrial fibrillation

Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) presents as an abnormal cardiac rhythm characterised by an irregular or abnormally fast (>100 bpm) resting heart rate (HR). AF risk factors include increasing age, diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease.1 AF increases stroke risk by roughly fivefold, greater than the risk elicited by hypertension, coronary artery disease or previous heart failure.2 AF-related stroke patients experience greater mortality rates, disability, hospitalisation time and healthcare costs relative to non-AF stroke patients.3 The East Midlands primary healthcare services comprise 19 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs at an increased frequency in patients with cancer, however, the link between cancer and AF is not fully understood.1,2 Stroke prophylaxis with anticoagulation is important; however, this can prove challenging in the setting of active malignancy, which predisposes to an increased risk of haemorrhage, as well as thrombosis.3 Traditionally, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin have been used in this setting. There remains limited evidence for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in cancer patients for stroke prophylaxis in AF (SPAF). However, small observational studies have demonstrated compa

Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac rhythm disturbance in adults, estimated to affect 3.29% of the population in the UK in 2016.1 The condition is strongly associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, in addition to reduced quality of life.2 The healthcare costs of managing patients with AF are high: estimates of the direct cost in Western Europe range from €450 to €3,000 per patient-year.3 Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is an established intervention in the management of several cardiovascular conditions, including coronary artery disease4 and heart failure.5 There is increasing re

Effective anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients with AF or VTE.4-7 Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have provided an alternative to warfarin for prevention of stroke or recurrent VTE in these patients in recent years. Compared with warfarin, NOACs have more predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, do not require monitoring of the international normalised ratio (INR), and have a wider therapeutic window that enables prescription at fixed daily doses over an extended period.8 Edoxaban, an inhibitor of Factor Xa is a member of the NOAC class. The accompanying articles summarise latest findings on the effect

Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is encountered with increasing frequency in clinical practice,1 and is associated strongly with adverse clinical outcomes, including stroke, cardiovascular events and death.2,3 Concomitant atherosclerotic disease may increase the risk of adverse outcomes in people with AF. For example, peripheral arterial disease was present in 11% of a large cohort of European patients with AF, and increased the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, compared with patients with AF but no peripheral arterial disease.4 In addition, AF is associated with adverse outcomes in a range of other subgroups of patients, inclu

Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) more than doubles the five-year risk of stroke in middle-aged men and women.1 Prior cerebrovascular disease markedly amplifies the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with or without AF.1,2 Figure 1 shows the influence of AF and prior cerebrovascular disease (stroke or transient ischaemic attack [TIA]) on the estimated five-year risk of a composite of stroke, systemic thromboembolism, or TIA (most events were ischaemic strokes) for a 60-year-old individual, from a large cohort study conducted in the UK.1 These observations demonstrate the need for long-term treatment to reduce the risk of stroke in thes

ACC.19 was held in New Orleans, US PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk add to evidence base for TAVR Prior literature suggests that transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior or even superior to standard surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR) among high and intermediate surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Two pivotal studies have now addressed the efficacy and safety of TAVR in AS patients at low mortality risk from surgery. PARTNER 3 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02675114) was an open-label trial that randomised 1,000 subjects with severe AS at low mortality risk from surgery into either TAVR with a third-generation ba

Relationship between diabetes and AF Mass screening of AF in the STROKESTOP study2 discovered diabetes, heart failure and previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) to be the strongest predictors for AF in multi-variate analysis. This confirms findings from the historical Framingham study, where diabetes conferred a 1.4-fold increased risk of stroke in men and a 1.6-fold increased risk in women.3 A recent review of the evidence from AF screening studies in those with perceived high risks, has demonstrated the prevalence of AF in people with diabetes ranges from 2.9%4 to 18.5%.2 Chan and Choy’s study (2016)5 did not find diabetes to be

Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases an individual’s risk of stroke fivefold.1 Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by 64%.2 Novel or direct oral anticoagulants are non-inferior to warfarin in preventing stroke in non-valvular AF and have a similar bleeding profile, but with a lower risk of fatal intracranial haemorrhage and several practical advantages.3-7 While several antiplatelet agents have been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, they are considerably less effective than OAC, with a similar risk of major bleeding, and, therefore, are no longer recommended in national guidelines for

Dr Mark Mills The question: medicate, or ablate? To medicate (with anti-arrhythmics), or to ablate: that is the question. In the management of atrial fibrillation (AF), the answer, depending on those questioned and the evidence cited, might be one, the other, both, or neither. Anti-arrhythmic drugs, compared with rate-control drugs, confer no prognostic benefit.1 Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests that ablation confers no mortality benefit over drug therapy.2 This equivocality presents a challenge in clinical practice. Here, consideration is given to each of these standpoints, while highlighting gaps in current knowledge and future direc