BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is a serious public health problem posing a considerable burden to not only patients, but the healthcare environment due to high rates of morbidity, mortality, and medical resource utilization. There are limited data on the variation in treatment practice patterns across different countries, healthcare settings and the associated health outcomes.Methods/designRHYTHM-AF was a prospective observational multinational study of management of recent onset atrial fibrillation patients considered for cardioversion designed to collect data on international treatment patterns and short term outcomes related to cardioversion. We present data collected in 10 countries between May 2010 and June 2011. Enrollment was ongoing in Italy and Brazil at the time of data analysis. Data were collected at the time of atrial fibrillation episode in all countries (Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom), and cumulative follow-up data were collected at day 60 (±10) in all but Spain. Information on center characteristics, enrollment data, patient demographics, detail of atrial fibrillation episode, medical history, diagnostic procedures, acute treatment of atrial fibrillation, discharge information and the follow-up data on major events and rehospitalizations up to day 60 were collected.DiscussionA total of 3940 patients were enrolled from 175 acute care centers. 70.5% of the centers were either academic (44%) or teaching (26%) hospitals with an overall median capacity of 510 beds. The sites were mostly specialized with anticoagulation clinics (65.9%), heart failure (75.1%) and hypertension clinics (60.1%) available. The RHYTHM-AF registry will provide insight into regional variability of antiarrhythmic and antithrombotic treatment of atrial fibrillation, the appropriateness of such treatments with respect to outcomes, and their cost-efficacy. Observations will help inform strategies to improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation.Trial registrationClinical trials NCT01119716

Background. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a major cause of graft loss and death after heart transplantation. Currently, no diagnostic methods are available during the early post-transplant period to accurately identify patients at risk of CAV. We hypothesized that PBMC gene expression profiles (GEP) can identify patients at risk of CAV. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed a limited set of whole-genome PBMC microarrays from 10 post-transplant patients who did (n = 3) or did not (n = 7) develop advanced grade CAV during their long-term follow-up. We used significance analysis of microarrays to identify differentially expressed genes and High-Throughput GoMiner to assess gene ontology (GO) categories. We corroborated our findings by retrospective analysis of PBMC real-time PCR data from 33 patients. Results. Over 300 genes were differentially expressed (FDR < 5%), and 18 GO-categories including “macrophage activation”, “Interleukin-6 pathway”, “NF-KappaB cascade”, and “response to virus” were enriched by these genes (FDR < 5%). Out of 8 transcripts available for RT-PCR analysis, we confirmed 6 transcripts (75.0%) including FPRL1, S100A9, CXCL10, PRO1073, and MMP9 (P < .05). Conclusion. Our pilot data suggest that GEP of PBMC may become a valuable tool in the evaluation of patients at risk of CAV. Larger prospectively designed studies are needed to corroborate our hypothesis.

Aims: Guidelines emphasise the importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for cardiovascular risk reduction. Given the importance of association between high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) normal levels and cardiovascular risk, there is an additional need to further evaluate diverse dyslipidaemic populations. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal observational study of patients aged ≥ 35 years on lipid-modifying therapy (LMT) for ≥ 12 months was conducted from patient records pooled from five Asian countries (Malaysia, Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand and Philippines). The prevalence of lipid abnormalities and goal attainment was assessed 12 months before and after LMT initiation. Results: Among 3256 patients (mean age -58.6 years, 50.4% men), 65.4% were highrisk patients and 88% were on statin therapy. At baseline 94.7% of all patients had at least one abnormal lipid value elevated, LDL-C (86.2%) being the most pre- were less likely to reach LDL-C goals. Fewer characteristics were independently associated with reaching normal levels of HDL-C and TG and attaining at least two normal lipid levels. Conclusions: While current LMT reduced the prevalence of dyslipidaemia, a third of patients still failed to achieve target/normal levels. We highlight country differences and the importance of improving therapy to attain multiple lipid goals/normal levels. What's knownPrevious studies have shown that despite optimal lipid-lowering therapy lipid goal/normal level attainment is low, more so in high-risk individuals. Studies quantifying lipid levels among those in the Asia Pacific region overall, and by patient and country subgroups are limited. What's newIn this large cross-sectional study fielded in five Asian countries, we highlight the country differences and patient characteristics by lipid level. Observations suggest that despite current treatment, dyslipidaemia is a still widespread unmet medical for which effective management strategies are still needed.

Data from four clinical trials compared reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) among patients treated with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs 5/100 mg and amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg and 10 mg. Response rate was assessed as reduction in SBP or DBP (>20/10 mm Hg) and proportion of patients achieving SBP <140 mm Hg or DBP <90 mm Hg. Patients were grouped into quartiles based on baseline SBP and DBP. Mean SBP and DBP were reduced in amlodipine/ losartan 5/50 mg (n=182) and amlodipine/losartan 5/100 mg (n=95) users across all baseline quartiles. Patients using amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg had significantly greater SBP and DBP reductions vs amlodipine 5 mg (P=.001 and P=.02, respectively). Amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg users had significantly greater SBP reduction vs amlodipine 10 mg (SBP P=.02; DBP P=not significant). The odds of responding to therapy were significantly greater with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg (odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-25.5) and were similar vs amlodipine 10 mg (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.017-9.51). These results support the use of combination therapy early in the treatment of hypertension.