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

New guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) have recently been published by the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society (ACCF/AHA/HRS) task force on practice guidelines, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Although they all refer to the same scientific data and agree in the majority of AF management, interpretation, and weighing of study results are quite different in some aspects. While recommendations for stroke risk assessment and prophylaxis are rather conservative in the ESC guidelines, the CCS guideline recommendations are more conservative with regard to lenient rate control and the ACCF/AHA/HRS recommendations are rather strict with regard to rhythm management.

Management of atrial fibrillation around the world: a comparison of current ACCF/AHA/HRS, CCS, and ESC guidelines