Oral direct inhibitors of thrombin and activated factor Xa are approved as new anticoagulant drugs. In contrast to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and heparins, the new agents have single targets in the coagulation cascade and more predictable pharmacokinetics, but they lack validated and available antidotes. Unlike VKA, they do not require routine monitoring of coagulation. However, the measurement of their pharmacologic effects might be of value in selected patients. They interfere with the routine coagulation tests, which should be interpreted with caution. Specific tests exist and can be used in case of emergencies. Adequate supportive care and temporary removal of all antithrombotic agents constitute the basis for management of serious bleeding complications. The administration of coagulation factors, such as fresh frozen plasma, prothrombin complex concentrates or recombinant activated FVII, can benefit in life-threatening bleeding or emergency surgery. Specific antidotes for non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants are in clinical development.This review aims at answering in a brief and simplified manner some clinical questions.

Background Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We aim to determine the impact of ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analysed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty, multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on major outcomes was analysed through Cox-regression analyses and delay of event (DoE) analyses. Results Among 9966 AF patients included, 8289 (83.1%) were clinically complex. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.72, 95%CI 0.58–0.91), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; aHR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.52–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58–0.85). Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.98) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.76, 95%CI 0.60–0.96) also in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all the outcomes investigated in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the number needed to treat for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes among clinically complex AF patients.

Aims The 4S-AF classification scheme comprises of four domains: stroke risk (St), symptoms (Sy), severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (Sb), and substrate (Su). We sought to examine the implementation of the 4S-AF scheme in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry and compare outcomes in AF patients according to the 4S-AF-led decision-making process. Methods and results  Atrial fibrillation patients from 250 centres across 27 European countries were included. A 4S-AF score was calculated as the sum of each domain with a maximum score of 9. Of 6321 patients, 8.4% had low (St), 47.5% EHRA I (Sy), 40.5% newly diagnosed or paroxysmal AF (Sb), and 5.1% no cardiovascular risk factors or left atrial enlargement (Su). Median follow-up was 24 months. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality were (St) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 8.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60–25.9], (Sb) (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08–1.35), and (Su) (aHR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14–1.41). For CV mortality and any thromboembolic event, only (Su) (aHR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.45–2.06) and (Sy) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.00–1.66) were statistically significant, respectively. None of the domains were independently linked to ischaemic stroke or major bleeding. Higher 4S-AF score was related to a significant increase in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, any thromboembolic event, and ischaemic stroke but not major bleeding. Treatment of all 4S-AF domains was associated with an independent decrease in all-cause mortality (aHR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). For each 4S-AF domain left untreated, the risk of all-cause mortality increased substantially (aHR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16–1.56). Conclusion  Implementation of the novel 4S-AF scheme is feasible, and treatment decisions based on this scheme improve mortality rates in AF.

IntroductionThe risk of complications in anticoagulation therapy can be reduced by maximising the percentage of time spent by the patient in the optimal therapeutic range (TTR). However, little is known about the predictors of anticoagulation control. The aim of this paper was to assess the quality of anticoagulant therapy in patients on warfarin and to identify the factors affecting its deterioration.Material and methodsWe studied 149 patients who required anticoagulant therapy with warfarin due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism. Each patient underwent proper training regarding the implemented treatment and remained under constant medical care.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 68.8 ± 12.6 years, and 59% were male. A total of 2460 international normalised ratio (INR) measurements were collected during the 18-month period. The mean TTR in the studied cohort was 76 ± 21%, and the median was 80%. The level at which high-quality anticoagulation was recorded for this study was based on TTR values above 80%. Seventy-five patients with TTR ≥ 80% were included in the stable anticoagulation group (TTR ≥ 80%); the remaining 74 patients constituted the unstable anticoagulation group (TTR < 80%). According to multivariate stepwise regression analysis, the independent variables increasing the risk of deterioration of anticoagulation quality were: arterial hypertension (OR 2.74 [CI 95%: 1.06-7.10]; p = 0.038), amiodarone therapy (OR 4.22 [CI 95%: 1.30-13.70]; p = 0.017), and obesity (OR 1.11 [CI 95%: 1.02-1.21]; p = 0.013).ConclusionsThe presence of obesity, hypertension, or amiodarone therapy decreases the quality of anticoagulation with warfarin. High quality of anticoagulation can be achieved through proper monitoring and education of patients.

Background Frailty is a medical syndrome characterised by reduced physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to stressors. Data regarding the relationship between frailty and atrial fibrillation (AF) are still inconsistent. Objectives We aim to perform a comprehensive evaluation of frailty in a large European cohort of AF patients. Methods A 40-item frailty index (FI) was built according to the accumulation of deficits model in the AF patients enrolled in the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry. Association of baseline characteristics, clinical management, quality of life, healthcare resources use and risk of outcomes with frailty was examined. Results Among 10,177 patients [mean age (standard deviation) 69.0 (11.4) years, 4,103 (40.3%) females], 6,066 (59.6%) were pre-frail and 2,172 (21.3%) were frail, whereas only 1,939 (19.1%) were considered robust. Baseline thromboembolic and bleeding risks were independently associated with increasing FI. Frail patients with AF were less likely to be treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.55–0.89), especially with non-vitamin K antagonist OACs and managed with a rhythm control strategy, compared with robust patients. Increasing frailty was associated with a higher risk for all outcomes examined, with a non-linear exponential relationship. The use of OAC was associated with a lower risk of outcomes, except in patients with very/extremely high frailty. Conclusions In this large cohort of AF patients, there was a high burden of frailty, influencing clinical management and risk of adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of OAC is maintained in patients with high frailty, but not in very high/extremely frail ones.