Comparative analysis of level of evidence and class of recommendation for 50 clinical practice guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology from 2011 to 2022

Detection of subclinical atrial fibrillation with cardiac implanted electronic devices: What decision making on anticoagulation after the NOAH and ARTESiA trials?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) may be asymptomatic and the extensive monitoring capabilities of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) revealed asymptomatic atrial tachi-arrhythmias of short duration (minutes-hours) occurring in patients with no prior history of AF and without AF detection at a conventional surface ECG. Both the terms "AHRE" (Atrial High-Rate Episodes) and subclinical AF were used in a series of prior studies, that evidenced the association with an increased risk of stroke. Two randomized controlled studies were planned in order to assess the risk-benefit profile of anticoagulation in patients with AHRE/subclinical AF: the NOAH and ARTESiA trials. The results of these two trials (6548 patients enrolled, overall) show that the risk of stroke/systemic embolism associated with AHRE/subclinical AF is in the range of 1-1.2 % per patient-year, but with an important proportion of severe/fatal strokes occurring in non-anticoagulated patients. The apparent discordance between ARTESiA and NOAH results may be approached by considering the related study-level meta-analysis, which highlights a consistent reduction of ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulants vs. aspirin/placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95 % CI 0.50-0.92). Oral anticoagulation was found to increase major bleeding (RR 1.62, 95 % CI 1.05-2.5), but no difference was found in fatal bleeding (RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.37-1.69). Additionally, no difference was found in cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality. Taking into account these results, clinical decision-making for patients with AHRE/subclinical AF at risk of stroke, according to CHA2DS2-VASc, can now be evidence-based, considering the benefits and related risks of oral anticoagulants, to be shared with appropriately informed patients.

Asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation: Clinical outcomes in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

The outcome implications of asymptomatic vs. symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) in specific groups of patients according to clinical heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) need to be clarified.

METHODS

In a prospective observational study, patients were categorized according to overt HF with LVEF≤40 %, or with LVEF>40 %, or without overt HF with LVEF40 %≤ or > 40 %, as well as according to the presence of asymptomatic or symptomatic AF.

RESULTS

A total of 8096 patients, divided into 8 groups according to HF and LVEF, were included with similar proportions of asymptomatic AF (ranging from 43 to 48 %). After a median follow-up of 730 [699 -748] days, the composite outcome (all-cause death and MACE) was significantly worse for patients with asymptomatic AF associated with HF and reduced LVEF vs. symptomatic AF patients of the same group (p = 0.004). On adjusted Cox regression analysis, asymptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF were independently associated with a higher risk for the composite outcome (aHR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.04-1.69) and all-cause death (aHR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.02-1.73) compared to symptomatic AF patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that HF-LVEF≤40 % asymptomatic patients had the highest cumulative incidence of all-cause death and MACE (p < 0.001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large European cohort of AF patients, the risk of the composite outcome at 2 years was not different between asymptomatic and symptomatic AF in the whole cohort but adverse implications for poor outcomes were found for asymptomatic AF in HF with LVEF≤40 %.