Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice, accounting for approximately one-third of hospitalisations for cardiac rhythm disturbances.1 Between 1980 and 2000, the age-adjusted incidence of AF significantly increased from 3.04 to 3.68 per 1,000 person-years in the US. 2 The prevalence of AF was lower among African Americans than among Caucasians, 3 and it also seemed to be lower in the Asian population. 4,5 In a nationwide cohort of 702,502 participants in Taiwan, the AF incidence was around 1.5 per 1,000 person-years. 6 Since a considerable number of AF patients was paroxysmal in nature, the incidence and prevalence of AF could be significantly underestimated.Systemic thromboembolism is the most severe complication of AF. It accounts for about 15-20 % of ischaemic strokes.7 AF-related strokes were associated with a poor prognosis as more than 50 % of the survivors remain with a severe deficit, and recurrence may be as high as 12 % per year. 8 The risk of AF-related stroke was higher in Caucasian populations than in Asians populations (see Figure 1). 4,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] AF could in fact drive a prothrombotic or hypercoagulable state, by virtue of its fulfilment of Virchow's triad for thrombogenesis (blood stasis, endocardial dysfunction/damage, and abnormal haemostasis). The most important point in determining the strategy of stroke prevention for AF is how to estimate the thromboembolic (TE) risk accurately. The CHADS 2 score is the most commonly used scheme in stroke risk stratifications for AF patients, 17 despite the fact that it classifies a large proportion of patients as being at 'intermediate risk', and several important TE risk factors were omitted in the scoring system. 18 Recently, a newly developed scoring system, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, which extends the CHADS 2 scheme by considering additional stroke risk factors (vascular diseases and female gender) was recommended to be used to guide the antithrombotic therapies for AF patients. 19,20 The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score is most useful in identifying truly low-risk patients, and no antithrombotic therapy is necessary for patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 0. [21][22][23] In the study performed by Taillandier et al., which enrolled a total of 616 AF patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 0, an OAC was prescribed on an individual basis in 273 patients (44 %), antiplatelet therapy alone in 145 patients (24 %), and no antithrombotic therapy in 198 patients (32 %).22 During a follow-up of 876 ± 1,135 days, 38 patients experienced adverse events (10 stroke/thromboembolism, 19 major bleeding, 17 deaths). Prescription of OACs and/or antiplatelet therapy was not associated with an improved prognosis for stroke/thromboembolism (relative risk: 0.99, 95 % confidence interval: 0.25-3.99, p-value: 0.99), nor improved survival or net clinical benefit (combination of stroke/ thromboembolism, bleeding and death). More recently, a nationwide cohort study in Taiwan further demonstrated that AF males with a CHA 2 ...