UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to identify relationships in recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with respect to anticoagulation status, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for comorbid cardiovascular conditions (co-GDMT), and clinical outcomes. The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-AF is a prospective, international registry of patients with recently diagnosed non-valvular AF at risk of stroke (NCT01090362).
UNASSIGNED: Guideline-directed medical therapy was defined according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. This study explored co-GDMT use in patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF (March 2013-August 2016) with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (excluding sex) and ≥1 of five comorbidities-coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease (n = 23 165). Association between co-GDMT and outcome events was evaluated with Cox proportional hazards models, with stratification by all possible combinations of the five comorbidities. Most patients (73.8%) received oral anticoagulants (OACs) as recommended; 15.0% received no recommended co-GDMT, 40.4% received some, and 44.5% received all co-GDMT. At 2 years, comprehensive co-GDMT was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89 (0.81-0.99)] and non-cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.85 (0.73-0.99)] compared with inadequate/no GDMT, but cardiovascular mortality was not significantly reduced. Treatment with OACs was beneficial for all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of co-GDMT use; only in patients receiving all co-GDMT was OAC associated with a lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism.
UNASSIGNED: In this large prospective, international registry on AF, comprehensive co-GDMT was associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients with AF and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (excluding sex); OAC therapy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of co-GDMT use.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Insertion of venous access devices (VAD) is usually considered a procedure with low risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, insertion of some devices is invasive enough to be associated with bleeding, especially in patients with previous coagulopathy or in treatment with antithrombotic drugs for cardiovascular disease. The current practices of platelet/plasma transfusion in coagulopathic patients and of temporary suspension of the antithrombotic treatment before VAD insertion are based on local policies and are often inadequately supported by evidence, since many of the clinical studies on this topic are not recent and are not of high quality. Furthermore, the protocols of antithrombotic treatment have changed during the last decade, after the introduction of new oral anticoagulant drugs. Though some guidelines address some of these issues in relation with specific procedures (port insertion, etc.), no evidence-based document covering all the aspects of this clinical problem is currently available. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to develop a consensus on the management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring VADs. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included vascular access specialists, surgeons, intensivists, anesthetists, cardiologists, vascular medicine experts, nephrologists, infective disease specialists, and thrombotic disease specialists) has structured the final recommendations as detailed answers to three sets of questions: (1) which is an appropriate classification of VAD-related procedures based on the specific bleeding risk? (2) Which is the appropriate management of the patient with bleeding disorders candidate to VAD insertion/removal? (3) Which is the appropriate management of the patient on antithrombotic treatment candidate to VAD insertion/removal? Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendations, and all recommendations were offered in a clear and synthetic list, so to be easily translated into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of the atrial fibrillation (AF) population attending Australian primary care is not receiving guideline-adherent oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. This study aimed to explore reasons for non-adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines in AF from the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and to map these reasons to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to identify potential opportunities to support practice change.
METHODS: An exploratory qualitative descriptive study among GPs practising in Western Australia was conducted using semi-structured interviews, from November 2020 to February 2021. The Framework Method was employed to facilitate thematic analysis, using NVivo software. Interview responses were also mapped to the COM-B model.
RESULTS: Nine of the 10 GPs initially consented participated in the semi-structured interview (Male = 56%, median age = 52 years, data saturation reached with 6 participants). Two themes emerged from analysis of the interview transcripts: (1) GPs\' decision-making process and (2) Patient refusal to take OACs. The COM-B model mapping identified behavioural factors that could impact adherence: capability (GPs\' knowledge and understanding of AF guideline recommendations), opportunity (access to a cardiologist, and patients\' refusal to take OACs), and motivation (using formal bleeding risk assessment tools).
CONCLUSIONS: GPs identified various reasons contributing to non-adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines in patients with AF. Multifaceted interventions should consider behavioural opportunities to improve adherence, including education and training, electronic decision support, clinical audits by allied health professionals, partnership between general practices and local hospitals, and cardiologist-led interventions to support GPs. Further studies are needed to capture patients\' reasons for refusing OACs.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant risk factor for avoidable stroke. Among high-risk patients with AF, stroke risk can be mitigated using oral anticoagulants (OACs), however reduction is largely contingent on physician prescription and patient persistence with OAC therapy. Over the past decade significant advances have occurred, with revisions to clinical practice guidelines relating to management of stroke risk in AF in several countries, and the introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist OACs (NOACs). This paper summarises the evolving body of research examining guideline-based clinician prescription over the past decade, and patient-level factors associated with OAC persistence. The review shows clinicians\' management over the past decade has increasingly reflected guideline recommendations, with an increasing proportion of high-risk patients receiving OACs, driven by an upswing in NOACs. However, a treatment gap remains, as 25-35% of high-risk patients still do not receive OAC treatment, with great variation between countries. Reduction in stroke risk directly relates to level of OAC prescription and therapy persistence. Persistence and adherence to OAC thromboprophylaxis remains an ongoing issue, with 2-year persistence as low as 50%, again with wide variation between countries and practice settings. Multiple patient-level factors contribute to poor persistence, in addition to concerns about bleeding. Considered review of individual patient\'s factors and circumstances will assist clinicians to implement appropriate strategies to address poor persistence. This review highlights the interplay of both clinician\'s awareness of guideline recommendations and understanding of individual patient-level factors which impact adherence and persistence, which are required to reduce the incidence of preventable stroke attributable to AF.