This 2018 joint consensus document provides updated clinical practice recommendations for managing antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome or undergoing percutaneous interventions.
Guides antithrombotic choices in AF with ACS or PCI; extends prior consensus with 2018 evidence synthesis.
In 2014, a joint consensus document dealing with the management of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary or valve interventions was published, which represented an effort of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA) endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS). Since publication of this document, additional data from observational cohorts, randomized controlled trials, and percutaneous interventions as well as new guidelines have been published. Moreover, new drugs and devices/interventions are also available, with an increasing evidence base. The approach to managing AF has also evolved towards a more integrated or holistic approach. In recognizing these advances since the last consensus document, EHRA, WG Thrombosis, EAPCI, and ACCA, with additional contributions from HRS, APHRS, Latin America Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), and Cardiac Arrhythmia Society of Southern Africa (CASSA), proposed a focused update, to include the new data, with the remit of comprehensively reviewing the available evidence and publishing a focused update consensus document on the management of antithrombotic therapy in AF patients presenting with ACS and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary or valve interventions, and providing up-to-date consensus recommendations for use in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lip et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: