-
Circulation Jan 2024The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients...
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.
Topics: Humans; American Heart Association; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiology; Risk Factors; Thromboembolism; United States
PubMed: 38033089
DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001193 -
Blood Aug 2023ELEVATE-RR demonstrated noninferior progression-free survival and lower incidence of key adverse events (AEs) with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
ELEVATE-RR demonstrated noninferior progression-free survival and lower incidence of key adverse events (AEs) with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We further characterize AEs of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib via post hoc analysis. Overall and exposure-adjusted incidence rate was assessed for common Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-associated AEs and for selected events of clinical interest (ECIs). AE burden scores based on previously published methodology were calculated for AEs overall and selected ECIs. Safety analyses included 529 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 266; ibrutinib, n = 263). Among common AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, urinary tract infection, back pain, muscle spasms, and dyspepsia were higher with ibrutinib, with 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rates. Incidences of headache and cough were higher with acalabrutinib, with 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rate, respectively. Among ECIs, incidences of any-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding were higher with ibrutinib, as were exposure-adjusted incidence rates (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively); incidences of cardiac events overall (the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class) and infections were similar between arms. Rate of discontinuation because of AEs was lower for acalabrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.93). AE burden score was higher for ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib overall and for the ECIs atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding. A limitation of this analysis is its open-label study design, which may influence the reporting of more subjective AEs. Overall, event-based analyses and AE burden scores demonstrated higher AE burden overall and specifically for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and hemorrhage with ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02477696.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Hemorrhage; Hypertension; Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37390310
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2022018818 -
Journal of the American College of... Jan 2024The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment...
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.
Topics: Humans; United States; Atrial Fibrillation; American Heart Association; Cardiology; Thromboembolism; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38043043
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.017 -
Circulation Jul 2023Pulsed field ablation is a novel nonthermal cardiac ablation modality using ultra-rapid electrical pulses to cause cell death by a mechanism of irreversible...
BACKGROUND
Pulsed field ablation is a novel nonthermal cardiac ablation modality using ultra-rapid electrical pulses to cause cell death by a mechanism of irreversible electroporation. Unlike the traditional ablation energy sources, pulsed field ablation has demonstrated significant preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation, and thus avoids certain thermally mediated complications. However, its safety and effectiveness remain unknown in usual clinical care.
METHODS
MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a retrospective, multinational, patient-level registry wherein patients at each center were prospectively included in their respective center registries. The registry included all patients undergoing postapproval treatment with a multielectrode 5-spline pulsed field ablation catheter to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) between March 1, 2021, and May 30, 2022. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from clinical documented atrial arrhythmia (AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia) of ≥30 seconds on the basis of electrocardiographic data after a 3-month blanking period (on or off antiarrhythmic drugs). Safety outcomes included the composite of acute (<7 days postprocedure) and latent (>7 days) major adverse events.
RESULTS
At 24 European centers (77 operators) pulsed field ablation was performed in 1568 patients with AF: age 64.5±11.5 years, female 35%, paroxysmal/persistent AF 65%/32%, CHADS-VASc 2.2±1.6, median left ventricular ejection fraction 60%, and left atrial diameter 42 mm. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 99.2% of patients. After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 367 (289-421) days, the 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.0%-80.0%); clinical effectiveness was more common in patients with paroxysmal AF versus persistent AF (81.6% versus 71.5%; =0.001). Acute major adverse events occurred in 1.9% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In this large observational registry of the postapproval clinical use of pulsed field technology to treat AF, catheter ablation using pulsed field energy was clinically effective in 78% of patients with AF.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Atrial Fibrillation; Retrospective Studies; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left; Treatment Outcome; Atrial Flutter; Registries; Catheter Ablation; Recurrence; Pulmonary Veins
PubMed: 37199171
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064959