Trends in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use:Health benefits and patient preference

In 2012, the Dutch Health Council published a report addressing barriers for an early and broad introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The report raised concerns about the lack of an antidote, adherence, lack of monitoring in the case of overdose and the increased budget impact at DOAC introduction. In the past decade, international studies have shown that DOACs can provide healthcare benefits for a large number of patients. This has led to an increase in the prescription of DOACs, as they are an effective and user-friendly alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Unlike VKAs, DOACs do not need monitoring of the international normalized ratio due to more predictable pharmacokinetics. However, the number of prescriptions of DOACs in the Netherlands is still lagging, compared to other European countries. This article highlights the potential health gains in the Netherlands if the use of DOACs were to increase, based on current international experience

Factors facilitating and hindering the implementation of the European Society of Cardiology Syncope Guidelines at the Emergency Department: a nationwide qualitative study

Aims: Syncope care is often fragmented and inefficient. Structuring syncope care through implementation of guidelines and Syncope Units has been shown to improve diagnostic yield, reduce costs and improve quality of life. We implemented the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2018 syncope guidelines at the Emergency Departments (ED) and established Syncope Units in five Dutch hospitals. We evaluated the implementation process by identifying factors that hinder ('barriers') and facilitate ('facilitators') the implementation.Methods and results: We conducted, recorded and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 19 specialists and residents involved in syncope care from neurology, cardiology, internal medicine and emergency medicine. Two researchers independently classified the reported barriers and facilitators, according to the framework of qualitative research (Flottorp), which distinguished several separate fields ('levels'). Software package Atlas.ti was used for analysis.We identified 31 barriers and 22 facilitators. Most barriers occurred on the level of the individual health care professional (e.g. inexperienced residents having to work with the guideline at the ED) and the organizational context (e.g. specialists not relinquishing preceding procedures). Participants reported most facilitators at the level of innovation (e.g. structured work -flow at the ED). The multidisciplinary Syncope Unit was welcomed as useful solution to a perceived need in clinical practice.Conclusion: Implementing ESC syncope guidelines at the ED and establishing Syncope Units facilitated a structured multidisciplinary work-up for syncope patients. Most identified barriers related to the individual health care professional and the organizational context. Future implementation of the multidisciplinary guideline should be tailored to address these barriers.(c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: The CHECK-HF registry

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in chronic heart failure (HF) patients and influences the choice and effects of drug and device therapy. In this large real-world HF registry, we studied whether the presence of AF affects the prescription of guideline-recommended HF therapy. Methods: We analyzed 8253 patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 34 Dutch outpatient clinics included in the period between 2013 and 2016 treated according to the 2012 ESC guidelines. Results: 2109 (25.6%) of these patients were in AF (mean age 76.8 ± 9.2 years, 65.0% were men) and 6.144 (74.4%) had no AF (mean age 70.7 ± 12.2 years, 63.6% were men). Patients with AF more often received beta-blockers (81.7% vs. 79.7%, p = 0.04), MRAs (57.1% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.01), diuretics (89.7% vs. 80.6%, p < 0.01) and digoxin (40.1% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.01) compared to patients without AF, whereas they less often receive renin-angiotensin-system (RAS)-inhibitors (76.1% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.01). The number of patients who received beta-blockers, RAS-inhibitor and MRA at ≥50% of the recommended target dose was comparable between those with and without AF (16.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.07). Conclusion: In this large cohort of chronic HFrEF patients, the prevalence of AF was high and we observed significant differences in prescription of both guideline-recommended HF between patients with and without AF

Recovery after cardiac arrest: the brain is the heart of the matter

Contains fulltext : 196259.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

What the elite athlete does not want to know

Contains fulltext : 190542.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Atrial fibrillation management: Time for new goals

Contains fulltext : 229205.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Mobile health: solution or a threat?

Contains fulltext : 202675.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access