Why the study?
Despite referencing the same multicentric studies, recent AF guidelines from major societies present interesting differences in details based on study assessments, publication timing, and local drug availability.
This review provides a comparative analysis of the latest major international guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation, highlighting key similarities and regional differences.
Supports broad alignment across major AF guidelines; leaves open questions on regional implementation and outcomes.
Recent versions of evidence-based guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS), and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CCS). As all societies refer to the same multicentric and usually multinational studies, the similarities undoubtedly outweigh the differences. Nonetheless, interesting differences can often be found in details, which are usually based on a different assessment of the same study, the availability of data in relation to the publication date and local preferences and availabilities of certain cardiovascular drugs. The following article aims at lining out these similarities and differences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolfes et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: