Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major worldwide public health problem, and AF in association with valvular heart disease (VHD) is also common. However, management strategies for this group of patients have been less informed by randomized trials, which have largely focused on 'non-valvular AF' patients. Thrombo-embolic risk also varies according to valve lesion and may also be associated with CHA2DS2VASc score risk factor components, rather than only the valve disease being causal. Given marked heterogeneity in the definition of valvular and non-valvular AF and variable management strategies, including non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with VHD other than prosthetic heart valves or haemodynamically significant mitral valve disease, there is a need to provide expert recommendations for professionals participating in the care of patients presenting with AF and associated VHD. To address this topic, a Task Force was convened by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis, with representation from the ESC Working Group on Valvular Heart Disease, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), South African Heart (SA Heart) Association and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE) with the remit to comprehensively review the published evidence, and to publish a joint consensus document on the management of patients with AF and associated VHD, with up-to-date consensus recommendations for clinical practice for different forms of VHD. This consensus document proposes that the term 'valvular AF' is outdated and given that any definition ultimately relates to the evaluated practical use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) type, we propose a functional Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial (EHRA) categorization in relation to the type of OAC use in patients with AF, as follows: (i) EHRA Type 1 VHD, which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a Vitamin K antagonist (VKA); and (ii) EHRA Type 2 VHD, which refers to AF patients with 'VHD needing therapy with a VKA or a Non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC)', also taking into consideration CHA2DS2VASc score risk factor components. This consensus document also summarizes current developments in the field, and provides general recommendations for the management of these patients based on the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Management strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in association with valvular heart disease (VHD) have been less informed by randomized trials, which have largely focused on ‘non-valvular AF’ patients. Thromboembolic risk also varies according to valve lesion and may also be associated with CHA2DS2-VASc score risk factor components, rather than only the valve disease being causal. Given the need to provide expert recommendations for professionals participating in the care of patients presenting with AF and associated VHD, a task force was convened by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group (WG) on Thrombosis, with representation from the ESC WG on Valvular Heart Disease, Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), South African Heart (SA Heart) Association and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE) with the remit to comprehensively review the published evidence, and to produce a consensus document on the management of patients with AF and associated VHD, with up-to-date consensus statements for clinical practice for different forms of VHD, based on the principles of evidence-based medicine. This is an executive summary of a consensus document which proposes that the term ‘valvular AF’ is outdated and given that any definition ultimately relates to the evaluated practical use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) type, we propose a functional EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) categorization in relation to the type of OAC use in patients with AF, as follows: (1) EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) type 1 VHD, which refers to AF patients with ‘VHD needing therapy with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA)’ and (2) EHRA (Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial) type 2 VHD, which refers to AF patients with ‘VHD needing therapy with a VKA or a non-VKA oral anticoagulant also taking into consideration CHA2DS2-VASc score risk factor components.

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

Monitoring the quality of new or ongoing surgical activities is a necessity. Several Statistical Process Control (SPC) tools are available to professionals. Among them, Shewhart charts and cumulative sum charts (CUSUM charts) are useful methods to provide visual feedback before significant quality issues arise. In this paper, we discuss both methods based on our current approach. On Shewhart charts, one variable value is plotted on a time-series line. This method provides information about every single determination. Random variations of the values appear and by adjusting the adequate control limits it is possible to know whether those variations are random or out-of-control. Although large variations are easily detected, small but relevant changes are not. On the contrary, CUSUM charts have the capability of detecting small changes quickly. CUSUM is defined as a statistical tool that graphically represents the sequential monitoring of cumulative performance of any dichotomized or continuous variable under assessment. It emphasizes failures penalizing them against the correct performance when individual risk is adjusted. This makes CUSUM especially sensitive to negative changes. CUSUM can be created without the need of a specific sample size and grow with every new case included. Besides the variable under control (with specific definitions of acceptable and unacceptable outcomes), the type I and II errors for the defined parameter and the individual risk of acceptable or unacceptable outcomes must be included in the chart. Graphical representation of these three parameters is easy and intuitive to read making CUSUM graphs a reliable tool to understand the trending of the parameter under control. If performance is considered inadequate: analysis, discussion and implementation of agreed measures should be taken. Despite its limitations, CUSUM analysis is considered the best tool for quality control in health care domain.

No abstract