4.6 Review

Management of Atrial Fibrillation in 2021: An Updated Comparison of the Current CCS/CHRS, ESC, and AHA/ACC/HRS Guidelines

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 10, Pages 1607-1618

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2021.06.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article compares recommendations from different AF guidelines and identifies important differences in areas such as AF definitions, anticoagulation therapy indications, and heart rate control strategies. These disparities highlight ongoing clinical uncertainty and present opportunities for future research.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available