医学
心房颤动
加拿大心血管学会
冲程(发动机)
冠状动脉疾病
指南
背景(考古学)
心力衰竭
重症监护医学
心律
抗血栓
内科学
心脏病学
心肌梗塞
心绞痛
病理
工程类
古生物学
生物
机械工程
作者
Christopher C. Cheung,Stanley Nattel,Laurent Macle,Jason G. Andrade
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.06.011
摘要
Abstract
Given its complexity, the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) has relied increasingly on expert guideline recommendations; however, discrepancies between these professional societies can lead to confusion among practicing clinicians. This article compares the recommendations in the 2019 American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CCS/CHRS) AF guidelines. Although many of the recommendations are fundamentally similar, there are important differences among guidelines; specifically, key differences are present in (1) definitions and classification of AF; (2) the role of opportunistic AF detection; (3) symptom and quality-of-life evaluation; (4) stroke-risk stratification and the indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy; (5) the role of aspirin in prevention of stroke for patients with AF; (6) the antithrombotic regimens employed in the context of coronary artery disease; (7) the role of OAC, and specifically non-vitamin K direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), in patients with chronic and end-stage renal disease; (8) the target heart rate for patients treated with a rate-control strategy, along with the medications recommended to achieve the heart-rate target; and (9) the role of catheter ablation as first-line therapy or in patients with heart failure. These differences highlight areas of continuing clinical uncertainty in which there are important needs and opportunities for future investigative work.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI