Publications

Ivabradine is one of several off-label treatments for patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify studies which evaluate ivabradine treatment in patients with POTS. The results were narratively synthesized given methodological heterogeneity among the identified studies. There were 11 studies included in the analysis with 305 participants between 2008 to 2020. The only randomized trial of 22 patients showed that ivabradine improved heart rate compared to placebo and there were symptomatic benefits in terms of physical functioning, and social functioning. All studies suggested a reduction in heart rate with ivabradine treatment; the proportion of patients with symptomatic benefit ranged from 67% to 100%. One study using the Malmo POTS score found that ivabradine improved the total score, including key components such as light-headedness with standing, feeling faint, feeling rapid heart rate, and chest pain. While two studies did not report side effects and two studies described no side effects, others reported adverse effects including bradycardia, nausea, worsening syncope, palpitations, flushing, light sensitivity, headache, light-headedness, fatigue, scalded tongue, itching and burning, and visual disturbance. In conclusion, there is low-quality evidence derived from small observational studies and one small randomized trial that ivabradine is effective in reducing heart rate and improving symptoms in patients with POTS. The exact role of ivabradine in treatment of POTS needs to be clarified in further randomized trials and more robust evidence.

There has been a major improvement in 5-year survival in patients with malignant hypertension over recent decades. Abnormal renal function at presentation still predicts worse outcome. South Asian ethnicity is also associated with better outcome, although mechanisms involved are yet to be established.

Patients with low income, low education and living alone were associated with lower chance of being initiated with OAC. For education and cohabiting status, the crude difference reduced around 2011, when more detailed clinical guidelines were implemented in Denmark. Our results indicate that new guidelines might reduce inequality in OAC initiation and that new, high-cost drugs increase inequality.

Evidence from this nationwide cohort study suggests a comparable 1-year risk of bleeding associated with DOAC compared with VKA among patients with AF and GI cancer.

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Vitamin K antagonist-treated AF patients with CKD are exposed to significant annual rates of major adverse events including all-cause mortality. This risk may be under-appreciated in the idealised environment of randomised controlled trials.

Abstract Background There is limited evidence regarding the comparative risks of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with stage 1 isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH), and systolic-diastolic hypertension (SDH), especially amongst young adults aged 20–39 years. Purpose To evaluate the association between early-stage of hypertension and AF in young adults aged 20–39 years. Methods From the Korean nationwide health screening database, 2,958,544 subjects aged 20–39 years who were not prescribed antihypertensive medication at the index examination in 2009 were included. Subjects were categorized into eight groups according to the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure (BP) guidelines: normal BP, elevated BP, stage 1 IDH, stage 1 ISH, stage 1 SDH, stage 2 IDH, stage 2 ISH, and stage 2 SDH. The primary outcome was new-onset AF during follow-up. Results During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, 7,347 subjects had incident AF (incidence rate, 0.3 per 1,000 person-years). Compared to the normal BP group, stage 1 IDH (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.160; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.086–1.240) and stage 1 SDH (1.250; 1.165–1.341) were associated with higher risks of incident AF, but not stage 1 ISH. Stage 2 IDH, ISH, and SDH were associated with higher risks of incident AF by 24%, 37%, and 61%, respectively (Figure). Conclusion Among young adults, stage 1 IDH and SDH were associated with higher risks of incident AF compared to normal BP. The risk of incident AF with stage 2 IDH was similar to that of stage 1 SDH. Optimal BP control including diastolic BP is crucial for preventing new-onset AF, even amongst young adults. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

The risk for incident AF is not static and increases with the accumulation of new comorbidities. The change in C₂HEST score had better prediction in assessing individual risk of incident AF compared with the baseline score.

Using clinical predictors to decide whom to test is a feasible alternative to investigating all comers. Nonetheless, currently there is not enough evidence to unequivocally recommend for or against this strategy. Further validation of current predictors and identification of new ones remain open research avenues.