A prospective survey in European Society of Cardiology member countries of atrial fibrillation management: baseline results of EURO bservational Research Programme Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) Pilot General Registry

Aims: Given the advances in atrial fibrillation (AF) management and the availability of new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, there is a need for the systematic collection of contemporary data regarding the management and treatment of AF in ESC member countries. Methods and results: We conducted a registry of consecutive in- and outpatients with AF presenting to cardiologists in nine participating ESC countries. All patients with an ECG-documented diagnosis of AF confirmed in the year prior to enrolment were eligible. We enroled a total of 3119 patients from February 2012 to March 2013, with full data on clinical subtype available for 3049 patients (40.4% female; mean age 68.8 years). Common comorbidities were hypertension, coronary disease, and heart failure. Lone AF was present in only 3.9% (122 patients). Asymptomatic AF was common, particularly among those with permanent AF. Amiodarone was the most common antiarrhythmic agent used (~20%), while beta-blockers and digoxin were the most used rate control drugs. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) were used in 80% overall, most often vitamin K antagonists (71.6%), with novel OACs being used in 8.4%. Other antithrombotics (mostly antiplatelet therapy, especially aspirin) were still used in one-third of the patients, and no antithrombotic treatment in only 4.8%. Oral anticoagulants were used in 56.4% of CHA 2DS2-VASc = 0, with 26.3% having no antithrombotic therapy. A high HAS-BLED score was not used to exclude OAC use, but there was a trend towards more aspirin use in the presence of a high HAS-BLED score. Conclusion: The EURObservational Research Programme Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) Pilot Registry has provided systematic collection of contemporary data regarding the management and treatment of AF by cardiologists in ESC member countries. Oral anticoagulant use has increased, but novel OAC use was still low. Compliance with the treatment guidelines for patients with the lowest and higher stroke risk scores remains suboptimal. © The Author 2013

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery