Comparing atrial fibrillation guidelines: Focus on stroke prevention, bleeding risk assessment and oral anticoagulant recommendations

Clinical practice in atrial fibrillation (AF) patient management is constantly evolving. In the past 3 years, various new AF guidelines or focused updates have been published, given this rapidly evolving field. In 2019, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association published a focused update of the 2014 guidelines. In 2020, both the European Society of Cardiology and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society released their new guidelines. Finally, the most recent guidelines were those published in 2021 by the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, which updates their 2017 version and the 2021 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. In the present narrative review, we compare these guidelines, emphasizing similarities and differ-ences in the following mainstay elements of patient care: thromboembolic risk assessment, oral anticoagulants (OACs) prescription, bleeding risk evaluation, and integrated patient management. A formal evaluation of baseline thromboembolic and bleeding risks and their reassessment during follow-up is evenly recommended, although some differences in using risk stratification scores. OACs prescription is highly encouraged where appropriate, and prescription algorithms are broadly similar. The importance of an integrated and multidisci-plinary approach to patient care is emerging, aiming to address several different aspects of a multifaceted disease.

Automated summary

Clinical practice in atrial fibrillation patient management is constantly evolving. Various new guidelines have been published in the past few years, and they differ in key elements such as thromboembolic risk assessment, oral anticoagulants prescription, bleeding risk evaluation, and integrated patient management. The importance of an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to patient care is emerging.