Terms of useThis work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark through the SDU Research Portal. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply:• You may download this work for personal use only.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med nejm.org

While management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients is improved by guideline-conform application of anticoagulant therapy, rate control, rhythm control, and therapy of accompanying heart disease, the morbidity and mortality associated with AF remain unacceptably high. This paper describes the proceedings of the 3rd Atrial Fibrillation NETwork (AFNET)/European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus conference that convened over 60 scientists and representatives from industry to jointly discuss emerging therapeutic and diagnostic improvements to achieve better management of AF patients. The paper covers four chapters: (i) risk factors and risk markers for AF; (ii) pathophysiological classification of AF; (iii) relevance of monitored AF duration for AF-related outcomes; and (iv) perspectives and needs for implementing better antithrombotic therapy. Relevant published literature for each section is covered, and suggestions for the improvement of management in each area are put forward. Combined, the propositions formulate a perspective to implement comprehensive management in AF.

At least 30 million people worldwide carry a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), and many more suffer from undiagnosed, subclinical, or 'silent' AF. Atrial fibrillation-related cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, including cardiovascular deaths, heart failure, stroke, and hospitalizations, remain unacceptably high, even when evidence-based therapies such as anticoagulation and rate control are used. Furthermore, it is still necessary to define how best to prevent AF, largely due to a lack of clinical measures that would allow identification of treatable causes of AF in any given patient. Hence, there are important unmet clinical and research needs in the evaluation and management of AF patients. The ensuing needs and opportunities for improving the quality of AF care were discussed during the fifth Atrial Fibrillation Network/European Heart Rhythm Association consensus conference in Nice, France, on 22 and 23 January 2015. Here, we report the outcome of this conference, with a focus on (i) learning from our 'neighbours' to improve AF care, (ii) patient-centred approaches to AF management, (iii) structured care of AF patients, (iv) improving the quality of AF treatment, and (v) personalization of AF management. This report ends with a list of priorities for research in AF patients.

Background: Even on optimal therapy, many patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation experience cardiovascular complications. Additional treatments are needed to reduce these events, especially in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This prespecified subanalysis of the randomized EAST - AFNET 4 trial assessed the effect of systematic, early rhythm control therapy (ERC; using antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation) compared to usual care (UC, allowing rhythm control therapy to improve symptoms) on the two primary outcomes of the trial and on selected secondary outcomes in patients with heart failure, defined as heart failure symptoms NYHA II-III or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%. Results: This analysis included 798 patients (300 (37.6%) female, median age 71.0 [64.0, 76.0] years, 785 with known LVEF). The majority of patients (n=442) had HFpEF (LVEF≥50%; mean LVEF 61% ± 6.3%), the others had heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (n=211; LVEF40-49%; mean LVEF 44% ± 2.9%) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=132; LVEF<40%; mean LVEF 31% ± 5.5%). Over the 5.1-year median follow-up, the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure or for acute coronary syndrome occurred less often in patients randomized to ERC (94/396; 5.7 per 100 patient-years) compared with patients randomized to UC (130/402; 7.9 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.74 [0.56-0.97], p=0.03), not altered by heart failure status (interaction p-value=0.63). The primary safety outcome (death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy) occurred in 71/396 (17.9%) heart failure patients randomized to ERC and in 87/402 (21.6%) heart failure patients randomized to UC (hazard ratio 0.85 [0.62-1.17], p=0.33). LV ejection fraction improved in both groups (LVEF change at two years: ERC 5.3%±11.6%, UC 4.9%±11.6%, p=0.43). ERC also improved the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure. Conclusions: Rhythm control therapy conveys clinical benefit when initiated within one year of diagnosing atrial fibrillation in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: Unique Identifiers: ISRCTN04708680, NCT01288352, EudraCT2010-021258-20, Study web site www.easttrial.org; URLs: www.controlled-trials.com; https://clinicaltrials.gov; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu