English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, EHRA Young Electrophysiologists, Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Council on Stroke joint survey aimed to assess the interpretation of the CHA2DS2-VASc score components and preferred resources for calculating the score. Of 439 respondents, most were general cardiologists (46.7%) or electrophysiologists (EPs) (42.1%). The overall adherence to the ESC-defined scoring criteria was good. Most variation was observed in the interpretation of the significance of left ventricular ejection fraction and brain natriuretic peptide in the scoring for the ‘C’ component, as well as the ‘one-off high reading of blood pressure’ to score on the ‘H’ component. Greater confidence was expressed in scoring the ‘H’ component (72.3%) compared with the ‘C’ (46.2%) and ‘V’ (45.9%) components. Respondents mainly relied on their recall for the scoring of CHA2DS2-VASc score (64.2%). The three most favoured referencing resources varied among different professionals, with pharmacists and physicians relying mainly on memory or web/mobile app, whereas nurses favoured using a web/mobile app followed by memory or guidelines/protocol. In conclusion, this survey revealed overall good adherence to the correct definition of each component in scoring of the ‘C’, ‘H’, and ‘V’ elements of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, although the variation in their interpretations warrants further clarifications. The preferred referencing resources to calculate the score varied among different healthcare professionals. Guideline education to healthcare professionals and updated and unified online/mobile scoring tools are suggested to improve the accuracy in scoring the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

europace

The interpretation of CHA2DS2-VASc score components in clinical practice: a joint survey by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, the EHRA Young Electrophysiologists, the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke