Boriani, Giuseppe

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly diagnosed early, close to its first occurrence due to: (i) increased public awareness with self-screening; (ii) health care initiatives including population screening and opportunistic case finding; and (iii) increased use and surveillance of implantable cardiac devices. At its onset, AF is often low burden, and cardiovascular co-morbidities may be absent or at an early stage. Thus, the management of recent-onset AF has become an issue of growing importance. Professional guidelines have traditionally focused on anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis, generally recommending a cautious approach to rhythm control, and priority has been given to rate control to alleviate symptoms. In recent guidelines, the importance of managing lifestyle and co-morbidities has increased. The AF-SCREEN collaboration proposes that a vigorous approach to active management of recent-onset AF may be warranted. This includes addressing co-morbidities and promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent the emergence or progression of AF and associated cardiovascular disease, as well as the initiation of active rhythm control ± anticoagulation to prevent AF-related morbidity and mortality, including stroke and heart failure (HF). Intuitively, intervention early after AF onset would be beneficial since lifestyle and co-morbidity management, plus rhythm control and anticoagulation, are important contributors to improved outcomes in patients with established AF, but robust evidence is lacking for recent-onset AF. There is a delicate balance between achieving favourable outcomes such as preventing strokes, HF and AF progression vs the complications and potential adverse effects of interventions. Given the serious long-term consequences, innovative approaches are necessary to determine the value and risks of initiating active therapy very early in the course of AF. More data are needed to guide the best management of recent-onset AF, bearing AF burden in mind. Long-term studies using large national databases linked to electronic medical records and rhythm monitoring devices offer excellent opportunities. Shorter-term studies focusing on reducing AF burden to slow AF progression and studies focusing on outcomes such as HF could be used in both randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies.

Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and is estimated to be present in >70% of AF patients. This Frontiers Review was prepared by 29 expert members of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration to summarize existing evidence and knowledge gaps on links between hypertension, AF, and their cardiovascular sequelae; simultaneous screening for hypertension and AF; and the prevention of AF through antihypertensive therapy. Hypertension and AF are inextricably connected. Both are easily diagnosed, often silent, and frequently treated inadequately. Together, they additively increase the risk of ischemic stroke, heart failure, and many types of dementia, resulting in greater all-cause mortality, considerable disease burden, and increased health care expenditures. Automated upper arm cuff blood pressure devices with implemented technology can be used to simultaneously detect both hypertension and AF. However, positive screening for AF with an oscillometric blood pressure monitor still requires ECG confirmation. The current evidence suggests that high-risk individuals aged ≥65 years or with treatment-resistant hypertension could benefit from AF screening. Since antihypertensive therapy effectively lowers AF risk, particularly in individuals with left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension should be the key target for AF prediction and prevention rather than merely a comorbidity of AF. Nevertheless, several important gaps in knowledge need to be filled over the next years, including the ideal method and selection of patients for simultaneous screening of hypertension and AF and the optimal antihypertensive drug class and blood pressure targets for AF prevention.

AbstractIntroductionCatheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently studied in randomized trials, observational and registry studies. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of future clinical studies on catheter ablation of AF, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.BackgroundStudies on catheter ablation of AF may benefit from well‐described definitions of endpoints and consistent methodology and documentation of outcomes related to efficacy, safety and cost‐effectiveness. The availably of new, innovative technologies warrants further consideration about their application and impact on study design and the choice of endpoints. Moreover, recent insights gained from AF ablation studies suggest a reconsideration of some methodological aspects.MethodsA panel of clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF and designing and conducting clinical studies developed an expert opinion on the design and endpoints for studies on catheter ablation of AF. Discussions within the expert panel with the aim to reach consensus on predefined topics were based on outcomes reported in the literature and experiences from recent clinical trials.ResultsA comprehensive set of recommendations is presented. Key elements include the documentation of clinical AF, medication during the study, repeated ablations and their effect on endpoint assessments, postablation blanking and the choice of rhythm‐related and other endpoints.ConclusionThis expert opinion provides guidance and promotes consistency regarding design of AF catheter ablation studies and identified aspects requiring further research to optimize study design and methodology.CONDENSED ABSTRACTRecent insights from studies on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the availability of new innovative technologies warrant reconsideration of methodological aspects related to study design and the choice and assessment of endpoints. This expert opinion, developed by clinical experts on catheter ablation of AF provides a comprehensive set of recommendations related to these methodological aspects. The aim of this expert opinion is to provide guidance for clinicians and industry regarding the development of clinical studies, implement lessons learned from previous studies, and promote a higher degree of consistency across studies.

Abstract Aims Operating on patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) is based on ACC/AHA or ESC/EACTS guidelines. Doubts persist on best surgical indications and their potential association with postoperative survival loss. We sought to investigate whether guideline-based indications lead to late postoperative survival loss in DMR patients. Methods and results We analysed outcome of 2833 patients from the Mitral Regurgitation International Database registry undergoing surgical correction of DMR. Patients were stratified by surgical indications: Class I trigger (symptoms, left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≥ 40 mm, or left ventricular ejection fraction < 60%, n = 1677), isolated Class IIa trigger [atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary hypertension (PH), or left atrial diameter ≥ 55 mm, n = 568], or no trigger (n = 588). Postoperative survival was compared after matching for clinical differences. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was analysed. During a median 8.5-year follow-up, 603 deaths occurred. Long-term postoperative survival was lower with Class I trigger than in Class IIa trigger and no trigger (71.4 ± 1.9, 84.3 ± 2.3, and 88.9 ± 1.9% at 10 years, P < 0.001). Having at least one Class I criterion led to excess mortality (P < 0.001), while several Class I criteria conferred additional death risk [hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42–1.66]. Isolated Class IIa triggers conferred an excess mortality risk vs. those without (HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.00–2.13, P = 0.05). Among these patients, isolated PH led to decreased postoperative survival vs. those without (83.7 ± 2.8% vs. 89.3 ± 1.6%, P = 0.011), with the same pattern observed for AF (81.8 ± 5.0% vs. 88.3 ± 1.5%, P = 0.023). According to RMST analysis, compare to those operated on without triggers, operating on Class I trigger patients led to 9.4-month survival loss (P < 0.001) and operating on isolated Class IIa trigger patients displayed 4.9-month survival loss (P = 0.001) after 10 years. Conclusion Waiting for the onset of Class I or isolated Class IIa triggers before operating on DMR patients is associated with postoperative survival loss. These data encourage an early surgical strategy.

Growing evidence suggests a consistent association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and cognitive impairment and dementia that is independent of clinical stroke. This report from the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration summarizes the evidence linking AF to cognitive impairment and dementia. It provides guidance on the investigation and management of dementia in patients with AF on the basis of best available evidence. The document also addresses suspected pathophysiologic mechanisms and identifies knowledge gaps for future research. Whereas AF and dementia share numerous risk factors, the association appears to be independent of these variables. Nevertheless, the evidence remains inconclusive regarding a direct causal effect. Several pathophysiologic mechanisms have been proposed, some of which are potentially amenable to early intervention, including cerebral microinfarction, AF-related cerebral hypoperfusion, inflammation, microhemorrhage, brain atrophy, and systemic atherosclerotic vascular disease. The mitigating role of oral anticoagulation in specific subgroups (eg, low stroke risk, short duration or silent AF, after successful AF ablation, or atrial cardiopathy) and the effect of rhythm versus rate control strategies remain unknown. Likewise, screening for AF (in cognitively normal or cognitively impaired patients) and screening for cognitive impairment in patients with AF are debated. The pathophysiology of dementia and therapeutic strategies to reduce cognitive impairment warrant further investigation in individuals with AF. Cognition should be evaluated in future AF studies and integrated with patient-specific outcome priorities and patient preferences. Further large-scale prospective studies and randomized trials are needed to establish whether AF is a risk factor for cognitive impairment, to investigate strategies to prevent dementia, and to determine whether screening for unknown AF followed by targeted therapy might prevent or reduce cognitive impairment and dementia.