Stroke risk prediction in patients with atrial fibrillation with and without rheumatic heart disease

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Anticoagulation for rheumatic mitral stenosis, INVICTUS in perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS) while declining in high- and middle-income countries, continues to be a major cause of death and disability in low-income countries. Although the nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have essentially supplanted vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), their efficacy for stroke prevention in patients with rheumatic MS and AF has not been widely studied until recently. The purpose of this review is to provide a succinct synopsis of the current anticoagulation recommendations for patients with native and prosthetic heart valve disease, with a specific focus on patients with rheumatic MS.

RECENT FINDINGS

The INVICTUS trial was the first large randomized evaluation of a NOAC vs. VKA in approximately 4600 patients with moderate to severe rheumatic MS and AF. The primary outcome of stroke, systemic embolization, myocardial infarction, vascular and all-cause death, VKA treated patients exhibited lower event rates (including mortality) compared to rivaroxaban. We discuss and contextualize these findings as they relate to the broader use of anticoagulants in patients with valvular heart disease, with and without concomitant AF.

SUMMARY

VKA remains the standard of care for patients with moderate to severe rheumatic MS who have concomitant AF. Rates of stroke in anticoagulated patients with rheumatic MS and AF are lower than what is traditionally held, while nonstroke related deaths remain the most common mechanism of mortality.

Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio and Red Blood Cell Distribution Width in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Rheumatic Valve Disease

The lifetime risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF) is 1 in 3 adults, resulting in a prevalence of 2-4%. Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a frequent aetiology of valvular heart disease in lowand middle-income countries. Between 21% and 80% of patients with mitral valve disease, especially with stenosis, may have AF. Both these conditions, AF and RHD, present a state of persistent inflammation. In turn, inflammation is a frequent cause of anisocytosis, which can be evidenced through the parameter RDW (red bold cell distribution width). Factors associated with increased RDW are also known as risk factors associated with a higher incidence of AF. RDW may have an independent role in the pathogenesis of AF and the increased propensity of both thromboembolic and bleeding events. Another marker involved in the incidence of AF is the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio. This is also a marker of oxidative stress and inflammation and is associated with a higher rate of AF recurrence. This review will evaluate these biomarkers and their association with cardiovascular events in patients with AF and RHD. The hypotheses and current debates about the relationship of biomarkers with the severity of chronic valve dysfunction, with acute rheumatic carditis in the paediatric population, and with the presence of thrombus in the left atrium will be discussed.

Bi-atrial versus left atrial ablation for patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (ABLATION): rationale, design and study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease (RMVD) and increase the risk of stroke and death. Bi-atrial or left atrial ablation remains controversial for treatment of AF during mitral valve surgery. The study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of bi-atrial ablation with those of left atrial ablation among patients with RMVD and persistent or long-standing persistent AF.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ABLATION trial (Bi-atrial vs Left Atrial Ablation for Patients with RMVD and Non-paroxysmal AF) is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study. The trial will randomly assign 320 patients with RMVD and persistent or long-standing persistent AF to bi-atrial ablation procedure or left atrial ablation procedure in a 1:1 randomisation. The primary end point is freedom from documented AF, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia of >30 s at 12 months after surgery off antiarrhythmic drugs. Key secondary end point is the probability of freedom from permanent pacemaker implantation at 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the probability of freedom from any recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias with antiarrhythmic drugs, AF burden, incidence of adverse events and cardiac function documented by echocardiography at 12 months after operation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The central ethics committee at Fuwai Hospital approved the ABLATION trial. The results of this study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05021601.

Comprehensive comparison of stroke risk score performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis among 6 267 728 patients with atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Multiple risk scores to predict ischaemic stroke (IS) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been developed. This study aims to systematically review these scores, their validations and updates, assess their methodological quality, and calculate pooled estimates of the predictive performance.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies developing, validating, or updating risk scores for IS in AF patients. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). To assess discrimination, pooled c-statistics were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 19 scores, which were validated and updated once or more in 70 and 40 studies, respectively, including 329 validations and 76 updates-nearly all on the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2. Pooled c-statistics were calculated among 6 267 728 patients and 359 373 events of IS. For the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2, pooled c-statistics were 0.644 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.635-0.653] and 0.658 (0.644-0.672), respectively. Better discriminatory abilities were found in the newer risk scores, with the modified-CHADS2 demonstrating the best discrimination [c-statistic 0.715 (0.674-0.754)]. Updates were found for the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 only, showing improved discrimination. Calibration was reasonable but available for only 17 studies. The PROBAST indicated a risk of methodological bias in all studies.

CONCLUSION

Nineteen risk scores and 76 updates are available to predict IS in patients with AF. The guideline-endorsed CHA2DS2-VASc shows inferior discriminative abilities compared with newer scores. Additional external validations and data on calibration are required before considering the newer scores in clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID CRD4202161247 (PROSPERO).