Why the study?
Choosing the best risk assessment tool for cardiac arrhythmias is complex, creating a need to raise awareness on selecting the right tool for a given outcome in a given population and to provide practical, evidence-based proposals.
This multinational expert consensus statement provides practical guidance on selecting the appropriate risk assessment tools for specific outcomes in patients with or at risk for cardiac arrhythmias.
May guide arrhythmia risk stratification in practice; leaves open prospective validation of proposed tools.
In clinical practice and for scientific purposes, cardiologists and primary care physicians perform risk assessment in patients with cardiac diseases or conditions with high risk of developing such. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) set down this expert consensus statement task force to summarize the consensus regarding risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias. Objectives were to raise awareness of using the right risk assessment tool for a given outcome in a given population, and to provide physicians with practical proposals that may lead to rational and evidence-based risk assessment and improvement of patient care in this regard. A large variety of methods are used for risk assessment and choosing the best methods and tools hereof in a given situation is not simple. Even though parameters and test results found associated with increased risk of one outcome (e.g. death) may also be associated with higher risk of other adverse outcomes, specific risk assessment strategies should be used only for the purposes for which they are validated. The work of this task force is summarized in a row of consensus statement tables.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen et al. (2020) conducted a review in Cardiac arrhythmias. Risk assessment tools was evaluated. An expert consensus task force provided practical proposals and tables to guide the rational, evidence-based use of specific, validated risk assessment tools for cardiac arrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: