Abstract-Peripheral (brachial) pulse pressure normally exceeds central (aortic) pulse pressure but is a less powerful predictor of cardiovascular risk. The difference between the 2 variables, called pulse pressure amplification, has never been specifically studied between the proximal and distal aorta in coronary patients. Our goal was to determine aortic pulse pressure amplification in subjects at high coronary risk, with emphasis on associated renal and inflammatory factors. Blood pressure was measured invasively in the ascending aorta, abdominal aorta (at the level of kidneys), and iliac artery in 101 subjects (mean age, 63Ϯ11 years; 61 men) undergoing coronary angiography. Independently of age, sex, and the presence of coronary stenosis, the increase of pulse pressure between the ascending and terminal aorta was over 10 mm Hg (PϽ0.001), whereas mean blood pressure remained unchanged. Pulse pressure amplification did not differ significantly between patients with and without coronary artery stenosis. Irrespective of confounding variables, high pulse pressure measured in the ascending aorta and at the level of renal arteries (but not in the iliac artery) was independently related to proteinuria. The increase in pulse pressure from the ascending aorta to the renal level was negatively associated with leukocyte count, even after multivariate adjustment (␤ coefficient, Ϫ0. Key Words: central pulse pressure Ⅲ pulse pressure amplification Ⅲ coronary artery disease Ⅲ chronic kidney disease Ⅲ blood pressure P eripheral (brachial) pulse pressure (PP) constantly exceeds central (aortic) PP but is a less powerful predictor of cardiovascular (CV) risk. 1,2 Several factors are involved in the development of this difference. 1,3 Among them, 3 factors can be considered to have major importance for the higher predictive value of central PP compared with brachial PP: the presence of aortic PP amplification, anomalies of kidney structure and function, and inflammatory factors. 4 It has been shown that systolic blood pressure (SBP) and PP are physiologically higher in peripheral than in central arteries. 1,4 -6 In contrast, peripheral diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is slightly lower compared with central DBP. 1,4 -6 Finally, nearly identical values are observed regarding mean blood pressure (MBP). This well-established behavior of the different blood pressure (BP) components is known to protect the heart against an increase in afterload, but it tends to lessen with age. 5,7 Increased arterial stiffness and alterations in the transit of wave reflections are major determinants of SBP and PP amplification. 3 Pressure amplification between the carotid and brachial arteries has been widely studied in the literature, but amplification between the proximal and distal aorta has never been investigated in subjects with coronary atherosclerosis. 1,5 Just in the middle of the abdominal aorta is the kidney, an important organ to consider. In subjects with hypertension or chronic renal disease, increased aortic stiffness or indices of pul...

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.