z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Current Recommendations on Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparison of the Recent European and Canadian Guidelines
Author(s) -
Sercan Okutucu,
Bülent Görenek
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.547
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1421-9751
pISSN - 0008-6312
DOI - 10.1159/000519465
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , antithrombotic , intensive care medicine , management of atrial fibrillation , randomized controlled trial , percutaneous coronary intervention , modalities , stroke (engine) , risk stratification , cardiology , mechanical engineering , social science , sociology , myocardial infarction , engineering
Background: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are frequently published and updated, reflecting the rapid evolution in AF pathogenesis and treatment modalities. Summary: Recently, 2 important guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial AF have been published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS). Although the evidence-based recommendations and statements are quite similar, there are some important differences between the ESC and CCS guidelines for AF. Herein, we compared the current recommendations and highlighted the differences from the most recent guidelines for AF. Key Messages: Specifically, key differences can be observed in methods evaluating the recommendations; classifications and the definitions; the symptom score used to guide management decisions, longitudinal patient assessment, and structured characterization; the stroke risk stratification algorithm used to determine indications for oral anticoagulation therapy; the role of acetylsalicylic acid in stroke prevention in AF; the antithrombotic regimens that are employed in the setting of chronic coronary syndromes, acute coronary syndromes, and percutaneous coronary intervention; the target heart rate for rate control; and the algorithms for integrated or holistic management of AF. Differences are observed, particularly when the quality of evidence is moderate or low. More research and randomized controlled studies on major gaps identified in current guidelines will further clarify and modify our future management strategies in AF.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here