2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS.

Peer reviewe

withdrawn 2017 hrs ehra ecas aphrs solaece expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

n/

Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants in Comparison to Phenprocoumon in Geriatric and Non-Geriatric Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Geriatric characteristics such as high age, multi-morbidity, polypharmacy and frailty are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In a retrospective study using a German claims database, effectiveness (ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism) and safety (intracerebral, gastrointestinal and major extracranial bleeding) were compared in patients with non-valvular AF starting non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) (apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban) and phenprocoumon. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios, and interaction terms of the treatment group and geriatric status (defined by age >= 75 years, frailty,>= 4 co-morbidities and polypharmacy) were entered into the model. A total of 42,562 and 27,939 patients initiated NOAC and phenprocoumon treatment (mean age 74 years +/- 11, 51% male) with a follow-up time of 147,785 person-years. Note that 52.9% of patients were elderly, 50.8% were frail, 37.0% were co-morbid and 46.5% had polypharmacy. NOAC use was not associated with effectiveness and gastrointestinal bleeding, neither in geriatric nor in non-geriatric patients. The hazard of major extracranial and intracranial bleeding was significantly decreased for NOAC use, with similar risk reduction in geriatric and non-geriatric patients: major extracranial bleeding 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.87) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60-0.89) for the geriatric groups and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.56-0.93) to 0.76 (0.59-0.98) for the non-geriatric groups ( p -values for interaction>0.6); and intracranial bleeding 0.52 (95% CI, 0.39-0.69) to 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47-0.73) for the geriatric groups and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.79) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86) for the non-geriatric groups ( p -values for interaction>0.2). Hence, NOACs showed similar effectiveness and superior safety in geriatric and non-geriatric patients

Novel Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Current Clinical Evidence and Future Developments

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac rhythm disorder and a major risk factor for ischemic stroke. Antithrombotic therapy using aspirin or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is currently prescribed for prevention for ischemic stroke in patients with AF. A narrow therapeutic range and the need of regular monitoring of its anticoagulatory effect impair effectiveness and safety of VKA, causing a need for alternative anticoagulant drugs. Recently developed anticoagulants include direct thrombin antagonists such as dabigatran or factor Xa inhibitors such as rivaroxaban, apixaban, betrixaban, and edoxaban. Currently, data from a phase III clinical trial are available for dabigatran only, which show the direct thrombin antagonist to be at least noninferior in efficacy to VKA for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with AF. This review focuses on current advances in the development of directly acting oral anticoagulant drugs and their potential to replace the VKA class of drugs in patients with AF. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:2067-76) (C) 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundatio

Uninterrupted Dabigatran versus Warfarin for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is typically performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation with warfarin or interrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy. Uninterrupted anticoagulation with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, such as dabigatran, may be safer; however, controlled data are lacking. We investigated the safety of uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation. METHODS In this randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled trial with blinded adjudicated end-point assessments, we randomly assigned patients scheduled for catheter ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation to receive either dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) or warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0). Ablation was performed after 4 to 8 weeks of uninterrupted anticoagulation, which was continued during and for 8 weeks after ablation. The primary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation; secondary end points included thromboembolic and other bleeding events. RESULTS The trial enrolled 704 patients across 104 sites; 635 patients underwent ablation. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. The incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation was lower with dabigatran than with warfarin (5 patients [1.6%] vs. 22 patients [6.9%]; absolute risk difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -2.2; P <0.001). Dabigatran was associated with fewer periprocedural pericardial tamponades and groin hematomas than warfarin. The two treatment groups had a similar incidence of minor bleeding events. One thromboembolic event occurred in the warfarin group. CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation with uninterrupted dabigatran was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfari

Apical Vs. Non-apical Lead: Is ICD Lead Position ImportantX for Successful Defibrillation?

International audienceINTRODUCTION: We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position. METHODS AND RESULTS: The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2475 of 2500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, p\textless 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 Ohms vs. 728 Ohms, p\textless 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70V vs. 0.66V, p = 0.01). Single-coil leads, and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity score matched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.66) or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% p = 0.35) according to lead location. CONCLUSION: We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserve