2,697 publications from this institution
During this last year, there has been much progress with regard to anticoagulant and ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). Apart from recently issued European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias, there has been little progress in research in this field. Ventricular arrhythmias and device therapy have seen modest progress.
Antithrombotic therapy is a key element of secondary prevention in patients who have had an ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. However, its use in clinical practice is not always straightforward. This review provides an update on certain difficult scenarios in antithrombotic management, with a focus on recent clinical trials and large observational studies. We discuss the approach to patients with an indication for antithrombotic treatment who also have clinical or radiological evidence of previous intracranial bleeding, patients with indications for both anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment, and patients in whom antithrombotic treatment fails to prevent stroke. We also review the timing of anticoagulation initiation after cardioembolic stroke, and the use of antithrombotics in patients with asymptomatic cerebrovascular disease. Despite a wealth of new evidence, numerous uncertainties remain and we highlight ongoing trials addressing these.
In this Danish cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation and a single stroke risk factor, there was no difference between NOACs compared with treatment with warfarin in terms of the risk of having an ischemic stroke/systemic embolism. For "any bleeding," this was lower for treatment with apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin. These data do not allow for a definitive statement of the comparative effectiveness or safety of NOACs because of the possible residual confounding that was unmasked with falsification outcomes.
<h3>Background</h3> Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased morbidity including stroke, heart failure, thromboembolic complications and high mortality. Beat to beat variation in blood flow dynamics during AF has been related to presence of endothelial dysfunction. Endothelial function can be assessed using flow mediated dilatation. Impaired FMD is associated with cardiovascular risk factors. FMD measurement using a high-resolution ultrasound has become a reliable and reproducible technique for assessment of endothelial dysfunction. <h3>Purpose</h3> To investigate whether type of AF leads to differences in endothelial function using FMD. Design: In a cross-sectional comparison, we studied two patient groups: permanent AF (n = 30) and paroxysmal AF (n = 31). Each participant underwent baseline blood tests, blood pressure check, electrocardiogram (ECG) and an echocardiogram. High-resolution ultrasound was used to measure brachial artery diameter at rest and during reactive hyperaemia (endothelium-dependent FMD). <h3>Results</h3> Participants in the two groups were well matched for age, sex, clinical characteristics including body mass index (BMI), mean blood pressure, HBA1c, creatinine clearance and left ventricular systolic function. There was a significant difference in FMD between permanent AF and paroxysmal AF groups (3.1, 95% CI [2.3 – 4.8] vs 5.9, 95% CI [4.0 – 8.1]; p = 0.02). Ischaemic heart disease was identified as an independent predictor of FMD on univariate analysis (p = 0.03) but there were no independent predictors of FMD on multivariate analysis. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Endothelium-dependent FMD is impaired in patients with AF. The duration and frequency of AF (paroxysmal AF to permanent AF) leads to worsening endothelial function. <h3>Conflict of Interest</h3> None