Coronary care unit CDK Cyclin-dependent kinase CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years (2 points), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke (2 points)-Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category (female) CIED Cardiac implantable electronic device CML Chronic myeloid leukaemia CMR Cardiac magnetic resonance COMPASS-CAT Prospective COmparison of Methods for thromboembolic risk assessment with clinical Perceptions and AwareneSS in real-life patients-Cancer Associated Thrombosis CPET Cardiopulmonary exercise testing CrCl Creatinine clearance CRF Cardiorespiratory fitness CRS Cytokine release syndrome CS Cancer survivors CT Computed tomography CTLA-4 Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 cTn Cardiac troponin CTRCD Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction CTR-CVT Cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity CV Cardiovascular CVD Cardiovascular disease CVRF Cardiovascular risk factorsData derived from a single randomized clinical trial or large non-randomized studies.Consensus of opinion of the experts and/or small studies, retrospective studies, registries.©ESC 2022 ESC Guidelines © ESC 2022This table refers to anthracycline equivalence dose using doxorubicin as a reference. Note that these isoequivalent doses are derived from paediatric CS. CS, cancer survivors; CV, cardiovascular.a Data for idarubicin are based upon an estimated anticancer efficacy ratio, not derived from cardiotoxicity data. The CV toxicity dose ratio provides the value that should be used to multiply the dose of the anthracycline of interest to convert to isoequivalent doses of doxorubicin; e.g. to convert 125 mg/m 2 of epirubicin to doxorubicin isoequivalent, multiply the dose by 0.8 (125 mg/m 2 × 0.8 = 100 mg/m 2 of doxorubicin).

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of heart rate and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of heart rate tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyze, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adverse consequences due to unintended modification of behaviour, uncertain use and interpretation of large physiological data, a possible increase in social inequality due to differential access and technological literacy, challenges with regulatory bodies and privacy issues. In the present position paper, current applications as well as specific barriers and gaps in knowledge are identified and discussed in order to support the implementation of wearable technologies from gadget-ology into clinical cardiology.

Aims Since digital devices are increasingly used in cardiology for assessing cardiac rhythm and detecting arrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation (AF), our aim was to evaluate the expectations and opinions of healthcare professionals in Europe on reimbursement policies for the use of digital devices (including wearables) in AF and other arrhythmias. Methods and results An anonymous survey was proposed through announcements on the European Heart Rhythm Association website, social media channels, and mail newsletter. Two hundred and seventeen healthcare professionals participated in the survey: 32.7%, reported regular use of digital devices, 45.2% reported that they sometimes use these tools, 18.6% that they do not use but would like to. Only a minority (3.5%) reported a lack of trust in digital devices. The survey highlighted a general propensity to provide medical consultation for suspected AF or other arrhythmias detected by a consumer-initiated use of digital devices, even if time constraints and reimbursement availability emerged as important elements. More than 85% of respondents agreed that reimbursement should be applied for clinical use of digital devices, also in different settings such as post-stroke, post-cardioversion, post-ablation, and in patients with palpitations or syncope. Finally, 73.6% of respondents confirmed a lack of reimbursement fees in their country for physicians’ consultations (tracings interpretation) related to digital devices. Conclusions Digital devices, including wearables, are increasingly and widely used for assessing cardiac rhythm and detecting AF, but a definition of reimbursement policies for physicians’ consultations is needed.

The role of subclinical atrial fibrillation as a cause of cryptogenic stroke is unambiguously established. Long-term electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring remains the sole method for determining its presence following a negative initial workup. This position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on e-Cardiology first presents the definition, epidemiology, and clinical impact of cryptogenic ischaemic stroke, as well as its aetiopathogenic association with occult atrial fibrillation. Then, classification methods for ischaemic stroke will be discussed, along with their value in providing meaningful guidance for further diagnostic efforts, given disappointing findings of studies based on the embolic stroke of unknown significance construct. Patient selection criteria for long-term ECG monitoring, crucial for determining pre-test probability of subclinical atrial fibrillation, will also be discussed. Subsequently, the two major classes of long-term ECG monitoring tools (non-invasive and invasive) will be presented, with a discussion of each method’s pitfalls and related algorithms to improve diagnostic yield and accuracy. Although novel mobile health (mHealth) devices, including smartphones and smartwatches, have dramatically increased atrial fibrillation detection post ischaemic stroke, the latest evidence appears to favour implantable cardiac monitors as the modality of choice; however, the answer to whether they should constitute the initial diagnostic choice for all cryptogenic stroke patients remains elusive. Finally, institutional and organizational issues, such as reimbursement, responsibility for patient management, data ownership, and handling will be briefly touched upon, despite the fact that guidance remains scarce and widespread clinical application and experience are the most likely sources for definite answers.