Hurwitz, Jodie L.

AbstractOn May 27, 2022, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society and the Heart Rhythm Society convened a meeting of leaders from different professional societies of healthcare providers committed to arrhythmia care from the Asia Pacific region. The overriding goals of the meeting were to discuss clinical and health policy issues that face each country for providing care for patients with electrophysiologic issues, share experiences and best practices, and discuss potential future solutions. Participants were asked to address a series of questions in preparation for the meeting. The format of the meeting was a series of individual country reports presented by the leaders from each of the professional societies followed by open discussion. The recorded presentations from the Asia Summit can be accessed at https://www.heartrhythm365.org/URL/asiasummit‐22. Three major themes arose from the discussion. First, the major clinical problems faced by different countries vary. Although atrial fibrillation is common throughout the region, the most important issues also include more general issues such as hypertension, rheumatic heart disease, tobacco abuse, and management of potentially life‐threatening problems such as sudden cardiac arrest or profound bradycardia. Second, there is significant variability in the access to advanced arrhythmia care throughout the region because of differences in workforce availability, resources, drug availability, and national health policies. Third, collaboration in the area already occurs between individual countries, but no systematic regional method for working together is present.

There is a growing appreciation for differences in epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of cardiovascular conditions by sex. Historically, cardiovascular clinical trials have under-represented females, but findings have nonetheless been applied to clinical care in a sex-agnostic manner. Thus, much of the collective knowledge about sex-specific cardiovascular outcomes result from post hoc and secondary analyses. In some cases, these investigations have revealed important sex-based differences with implications for optimizing care for female patients with arrhythmias. This review explores the available evidence related to cardiac arrhythmia care among females, with emphasis on areas in which important sex differences are known or suggested. Considerations related to improving female enrollment in clinical trials as a way to establish more robust clinical evidence for the treatment of females are discussed. Areas of remaining evidence gaps are provided, and recommendations for areas of future research and specific action items are suggested. The overarching goal is to improve appreciation for sex-based differences in cardiac arrhythmia care as 1 component of a comprehensive plan to optimize arrhythmia care for all patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Background: Efforts to improve prescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) drugs in patients with atrial fibrillation have had limited success in improving guideline adherence. Methods: We evaluated adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association performance measures for OAC in eligible patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2 and trends in prescription over time in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines–AFIB (atrial fibrillation) registry. Adjusted associations with in-hospital outcomes were also determined. The cohort included 33 235 patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2 who were admitted for atrial fibrillation and were enrolled at 115 sites between January 1, 2013, and September 31, 2017. Results: The median (25th, 75th percentile) age was 73 years (65, 81 years); 51% were female; and the median (25th, 75th percentile) CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4 (3, 5). At admission, 16 206 (59.5%) of 27 221 patients with a previous diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were taking OAC agents, and OAC drug use at admission was associated with a lower adjusted odds of in-hospital ischemic stroke (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24–0.59; P <0.0001). At discharge, prescription of OAC in eligible patients (no contraindications) was 93.5% (n=25 499 of 27 270). In a sensitivity analysis, when excluding only strict contraindications (4.6%, n=1497 of 32 806), OAC prescription at discharge was 80.3%. OAC prescription at discharge was higher in those aged ≤75 years, men, those with heart failure, those with previous atrial fibrillation ablation, and those with rhythm control ( P <0.0001 for all). OAC use was lowest in Hispanic patients (90.2%, P <0.0001). Prescription of OAC at discharge in eligible patients improved over time from 79.9% to 96.6% ( P <0.0001). Conclusions: Among hospitals participating in the GWTG-AFIB quality improvement program, OAC prescription at discharge in eligible guideline-indicated patients increased significantly and improved consistently over time. These data confirm that high-level adherence to guideline-recommended stroke prevention is achievable.