Persistent atrial fibrillation vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: differences in management.

Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther

c Unitat de Fibril·lació Auricular (UFA), Hospital Clinic , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona , Spain.

Published: August 2017


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common human arrhythmia. AF is a progressive disease, initially being nonsustained and induced by trigger activity, and progressing towards persistent AF through alteration of the atrial myocardial substrate. Treatment of AF aims to decrease the risk of stroke and improve the quality of life, by preventing recurrences (rhythm control) or controlling the heart rate during AF (rate control). In the last 20 years, catheter-based and, less frequently, surgical and hybrid ablation techniques have proven more successful compared with drug therapy in achieving rhythm control in patients with AF. However, the efficiency of ablation techniques varies greatly, being highest in paroxysmal and lowest in long-term persistent AF. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the fundamental differences between paroxysmal and persistent AF and the potential impact of those differences on patient management, emphasizing the available therapeutic strategies to achieve rhythm control. Expert commentary: Treatment to prevent AF recurrences is suboptimal, particularly in patients with persistent AF. Emerging technologies, such as documentation of atrial fibrosis using magnetic resonance imaging and documentation of electrical substrate using advanced electrocardiographic imaging techniques are likely to provide valuable insights about patient-specific tailoring of treatments.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14779072.2017.1355237DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

atrial fibrillation
12
rhythm control
12
ablation techniques
8
persistent
5
persistent atrial
4
fibrillation paroxysmal
4
atrial
4
paroxysmal atrial
4
fibrillation differences
4
differences management
4

Similar Publications

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study.

Lancet Digit Health

September 2025

Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation, a condition associated with adverse outcomes in the short and long term, is common in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Identifying patients at high risk could inform trials of preventive interventions and help to target such interventions. We aimed to develop and externally validate a prediction model for new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients admitted to ICUs.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: The impact of off-label underdosing of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unclear.

Methods: The EPIC-CAD trial (Edoxaban vs Edoxaban with antiPlatelet agent In patients with atrial fibrillation and Chronic stable Coronary Artery Disease) randomised patients with AF and stable CAD to receive either edoxaban monotherapy or dual antithrombotic therapy (edoxaban plus single antiplatelet agent). Off-label underdosing was defined as low-dose edoxaban (30 mg once daily) without standard criteria for dose reduction.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in adults, with incidence increasing with age. Cognitive impairment (CoI) and dementia share risk factors with AF. Meta-analyses indicate that AF increases the risk of CoI by 2.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: Societal guidelines recommend vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for atrial fibrillation patients with recent biological valve implantation, but the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this setting remain uncertain, especially in the early postoperative period. This substudy of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS) III trial aimed to compare thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes in patients discharged on VKAs versus DOACs after bioprosthesis implantation or mitral valve repair.

Methods: A total of 2,645 patients were included, with 461 discharged on DOACs and 2184 on VKAs.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF