Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Survey was to assess the perceptions of 'valvular' atrial fibrillation (AF) and management of AF patients with various heart valve abnormalities in daily clinical practice in European electrophysiology (EP) centres. Questionnaire survey was sent via the Internet to the EHRA-EP Research Network Centres. Of the 52 responding centres, 42 (80.8%) were university hospitals. Choosing the most comprehensive definition of valvular AF, a total of 49 centres (94.2%) encountered a mechanical prosthetic heart valve and significant rheumatic mitral stenosis, 35 centres (67.3%) also considered bioprosthetic valves, and 25 centres (48.1%) included any significant valvular heart disease, requiring surgical repair in the definition of valvular AF. Only three centres (5.8%) would define valvular AF as the presence of any (even mild) valvular abnormality. None of the centres would use non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in AF patients with mechanical prosthetic valves, only 5 centres (9.8%) would use NOACs in patients with significant mitral stenosis, 17 centres (32.7%) would consider the use of NOACs in patients with bioprosthetic valves, and 21 centres (41.2%) would use NOACs in patients with a non-recent transcatheter valve replacement/implantation, while 13 centres (25.5%) would never consider the use of NOACs in AF patients with even mild native heart valve abnormality. Our survey showed marked heterogeneity in the definition of valvular AF and thromboprophylactic treatments, with the use of variable NOACs in patients with valvular heart disease other than prosthetic heart valves or significant mitral stenosis, indicating that this term may be misleading and should not be used.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw302 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!