Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common sustained arrhythmia necessitating dual focus: acute complication management and sustained longitudinal oversight to modulate disease progression and ensure comprehensive patient care over time. AF is a multifaceted disorder; due to such a great number of potential exacerbating conditions, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) should manage AF patients by cooperating with a cardiologist. Effective management of AF patients necessitates the implementation of a well-coordinated and tailored care pathway aimed at delivering optimized treatment through collaboration among various healthcare professionals. Management of AF should be carefully evaluated and mutually agreed upon in consultation with healthcare providers. It is crucial to recognize that treatment may evolve due to the emergence of new risk factors, symptoms, disease progression, and advancements in treatment modalities. In the context of multidisciplinary AF teams, a coordinated approach involves assembling a diverse team tailored to meet individual patients' unique needs based on local services' availability.

A notable increase in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use has been observed in the last decade. This trend has surpassed the prescription of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) due to the absence of the need for regular laboratory monitoring and the more favorable characteristics in terms of efficacy and safety. However, it is very common that patients on DOACs need an interventional or surgical procedure, requiring a careful evaluation and a challenging approach. Therefore, perioperative anticoagulation management of patients on DOACs represents a growing concern for clinicians. Indeed, while several surgical interventions require temporary discontinuation of DOACs, other procedures that involve a lower risk of bleeding can be conducted, maintaining a minimal or uninterrupted DOAC strategy. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of patient characteristics, including age, susceptibility to stroke, previous bleeding complications, concurrent medications, renal and hepatic function, and other factors, in addition to surgical considerations, is mandatory to establish the optimal discontinuation and resumption timing of DOACs. A multidisciplinary approach is required for managing perioperative anticoagulation in order to establish how to face these circumstances. This narrative review aims to provide physicians with a practical guide for DOAC perioperative management, addressing the most controversial issues.

In clinical practice, the number of patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has consistently increased over the years. Since anticoagulant therapy has been associated with an annual incidence of major bleeding (MB) events of approximately 2% to 3.5%, it is of paramount importance to understand how to manage anticoagulated patients with major or life-threatening bleeding. A considerable number of these patients' conditions necessitate hospitalization, and the administration of reversal agents may be imperative to manage and control bleeding episodes effectively. Importantly, effective strategies for reversing the anticoagulant effects of DOACs have been well recognized. Specifically, idarucizumab has obtained regulatory approval for the reversal of dabigatran, and andexanet alfa has recently been approved for reversing the effects of apixaban or rivaroxaban in patients experiencing life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding events. Moreover, continuous endeavors are being made to develop supplementary reversal agents. In emergency scenarios where specific reversal agents might not be accessible, non-specific hemostatic agents such as prothrombin complex concentrate can be utilized to neutralize the anticoagulant effects of DOACs. However, it is paramount to emphasize that specific reversal agents, characterized by their efficacy and safety, should be the preferred choice when suitable. Moreover, it is worth noting that adherence to the guidelines for the reversal agents is poor, and there is a notable gap between international recommendations and actual clinical practices in this regard. This narrative review aims to provide physicians with a practical approach to managing specific reversal agents.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a notable heterogeneity in both phenotypic and pathophysiological features, with a growing incidence due to the increase in median age and comorbidities such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and cardiometabolic disease. In recent decades, the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological options has significantly impacted outcomes, improving clinical status and reducing mortality. Moreover, a more personalized and accurate therapeutic management has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of life, diminish hospitalizations, and improve overall survival. Therefore, assessing the peculiarities of patients with HFpEF is crucial in order to obtain a better understanding of this disorder. Importantly, comorbidities have been shown to influence symptoms and prognosis, and, consequently, they should be carefully addressed. In this sense, it is mandatory to join forces with a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve high-quality care. However, HFpEF remains largely under-recognized and under-treated in clinical practice, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these patients remains challenging. The aim of this paper is to articulate a pragmatic approach for patients with HFpEF focusing on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF.

Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) is a lysosome storage disorder resulting from an X-linked inheritance of a mutation in the galactosidase A (GLA) gene encoding for the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (α-GAL A). This mutation results in a deficiency or absence of α-GAL A activity, with a progressive intracellular deposition of glycosphingolipids leading to organ dysfunction and failure. Cardiac damage starts early in life, often occurring sub-clinically before overt cardiac symptoms. Left ventricular hypertrophy represents a common cardiac manifestation, albeit conduction system impairment, arrhythmias, and valvular abnormalities may also characterize AFD. Even in consideration of pleiotropic manifestation, diagnosis is often challenging. Thus, knowledge of cardiac and extracardiac diagnostic "red flags" is needed to guide a timely diagnosis. Indeed, considering its systemic involvement, a multidisciplinary approach may be helpful in discerning AFD-related cardiac disease. Beyond clinical pearls, a practical approach to assist clinicians in diagnosing AFD includes optimal management of biochemical tests, genetic tests, and cardiac biopsy. We extensively reviewed the current literature on AFD cardiomyopathy, focusing on cardiac "red flags" that may represent key diagnostic tools to establish a timely diagnosis. Furthermore, clinical findings to identify patients at higher risk of sudden death are also highlighted.

Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), which encompasses a broad spectrum of clinical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD), is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recent guidelines for the management of CCS emphasize the dynamic nature of the CAD process, replacing the term "stable" with "chronic", as this disease is never truly "stable". Despite significant advances in the treatment of CAD, patients with CCS remain at an elevated risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) due to the so-called residual cardiovascular risk. Several pathogenetic pathways (thrombotic, inflammatory, metabolic, and procedural) may distinctly contribute to the residual risk in individual patients and represent a potential target for newer preventive treatments. Identifying the level and type of residual cardiovascular risk is essential for selecting the most appropriate diagnostic tests and follow-up procedures. In addition, new management strategies and healthcare models could further support available treatments and lead to important prognostic benefits. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in the management of patients with CCS and to promote more effective multidisciplinary care.

It is well established that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the cornerstone of anticoagulant strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and should be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) since they are superior or non-inferior to VKAs in reducing thromboembolic risk and are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage (IH). In addition, many factors, such as fewer pharmacokinetic interactions and less need for monitoring, contribute to the favor of this therapeutic strategy. Although DOACs represent a more suitable option, several issues should be considered in clinical practice, including drug-drug interactions (DDIs), switching to other antithrombotic therapies, preprocedural and postprocedural periods, and the use in patients with chronic renal and liver failure and in those with cancer. Furthermore, adherence to DOACs appears to remain suboptimal. This narrative review aims to provide a practical guide for DOAC prescription and address challenging scenarios.

The combination of oral anticoagulants (OAC) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the mainstay for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing PCI. However, this treatment leads to a significant increase in risk of bleeding. In most cases, according to the most recent guidelines, triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) consisting of OAC and DAPT, typically aspirin and clopidogrel, should be limited to one week after ACS and/or PCI (default strategy). On the other hand, in patients with a high ischemic risk (i.e., stent thrombosis) and without increased risk of bleeding, TAT should be continued for up to one month. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in triple or dual antithrombotic therapy (OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor) should be favored over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) because of their favorable risk/benefit profile. The choice of the duration of TAT (one week or one month) depends on a case-by-case evaluation of a whole series of hemorrhagic or ischemic risk factors for each patient. Likewise, the specific DOAC treatment should be selected according to the clinical characteristics of each patient. We propose a series of paradigmatic clinical cases to illustrate the decision-making work-up in clinical practice.

Introduction: Data regarding the efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and patients' previous history of pulmonary lobectomy/pneumonectomy are scanty. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and long-term follow-up of catheter ablation in this highly selected group of patients., Material and Methods: Twenty consecutive patients (8 females, 40%; median age 65.2 years old) with a history of pneumonectomy/lobectomy and paroxysmal or persistent AF, treated by means of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) at ten participating centers were included. Procedural success, intra-procedural complications, and AF recurrences were considered., Results: Fifteen patients had a previous lobectomy and five patients had a complete pneumonectomy. A large proportion (65%) of PV stumps were electrically active and represented a source of firing in 20% of cases. PVI was performed by radiofrequency ablation in 13 patients (65%) and by cryoablation in the remaining 7 cases. Over a median follow up of 29.7 months, a total of 7 (33%) AF recurrences were recorded with neither a difference between patients treated with cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation or between the two genders., Conclusions: Catheter ablation by radiofrequency ablation or cryoablation in patients with pulmonary stumps is feasible and safe. Long-term outcomes are favorable, and a similar efficacy of catheter ablation has been noticed in both males and females.

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of in-hospital mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Only limited data are available on the long-term outcome of STEMI patients with CS undergoing contemporary treatment. We aimed to investigate long-term mortality and its predictors in STEMI patients with CS and to develop a risk score for long-term mortality prediction., Methods and Results: We retrospectively included 465 patients with STEMI complicated by CS and treated with primary angioplasty and intra-aortic balloon pump between 2005 and 2018. Long-term mortality, including both in-hospital mortality and all-cause mortality following discharge from the index hospitalization, was the primary endpoint. The long-term mortality (median follow-up 4 (2.0-5.2) years) was 60%, including in-hospital mortality (34%). At multivariate analysis, independent predictors of long-term mortality were age (HR 1.41, each 10-year increase), admission left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 1.51, each 10%-unit decrease) and creatinine (HR 1.28, each mg/dl increase), and acute kidney injury (HR 1.81). When these predictors were pooled together, the area under the curve (AUC) for long-term mortality was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84). Using the four variables, we developed a risk score with a mean (cross-validation analysis) AUC of 0.79. When the score was applied to in-hospital mortality, its AUC was 0.79, and 0.76 when the score was applied to all-cause mortality following discharge., Conclusions: In STEMI patients with CS, the risk of death is still substantial in the years following the index event. A simple clinical score at the time of the index event accurately predicts long-term mortality risk.