Cardiology Division, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Policlinico di Modena, Via del Pozzo, 71, 41124, Modena, Italy.
Clinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Intern Emerg Med. 2022 Jun;17(4):1001-1012. doi: 10.1007/s11739-021-02890-x. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
The 4S-AF scheme [Stroke risk, Symptom severity, Severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, Substrate severity] was recently proposed to characterize AF patients. In this post hoc analysis we evaluated the agreement between the therapeutic strategy (rate or rhythm control, respectively), as suggested by the 4S-AF scheme, and the actual strategy followed in a patients cohort. Outcomes of interest were as follows: all-cause death, a composite of all-cause death/any thromboembolism/acute coronary syndrome, and a composite of all-cause death, any thrombotic/ischemic event, and major bleeding (net clinical outcome). We enrolled 615 patients: 60.5% male, median age 74 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-80] years; median CHADSVASc 4 and median HAS-BLED 2. The 4S-AF score would have suggested a rhythm-control strategy in 351 (57.1%) patients while a rate control in 264 (42.9%). The strategy adopted was concordant with the 4S-AF suggestions in 342 (55.6%) cases, and non-concordant in 273 (44.4%). After a median follow-up of 941 days (IQR 365-1282), 113 (18.4%) patients died, 158 (25.7%) had an event of the composite endpoint. On adjusted Cox regression analysis, when 4S-AF score suggested rate control, disagreement with that suggestion was not associated with a worse outcome. When 4S-AF indicated rhythm control, disagreement was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR 7.59; 95% CI 1.65-35.01), and of the composite outcome (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.19-6.06). The 4S-AF scheme is a useful tool to comprehensively evaluate AF patients and aid the decision-making process. Disagreement with the rhythm control suggestion of the 4S-AF scheme was associated with adverse clinical outcomes.
4S-AF 方案[卒中风险、症状严重程度、房颤(AF)负荷严重程度、基质严重程度]最近被提出用于描述 AF 患者。在这项事后分析中,我们评估了该方案建议的治疗策略(分别为节律控制或心率控制)与患者队列中实际采用的策略之间的一致性。主要结局如下:全因死亡、全因死亡/任何血栓栓塞/急性冠状动脉综合征复合终点,以及全因死亡、任何血栓形成/缺血性事件和大出血复合终点(净临床结局)。共纳入 615 例患者:男性占 60.5%,中位年龄 74 岁[四分位间距(IQR)67-80];中位 CHADSVASc 为 4,中位 HAS-BLED 为 2。根据 4S-AF 评分,351 例(57.1%)患者建议采用节律控制策略,264 例(42.9%)患者建议采用心率控制策略。在 342 例(55.6%)患者中,所采用的策略与 4S-AF 建议一致,在 273 例(44.4%)患者中不一致。中位随访 941 天(IQR 365-1282)后,113 例(18.4%)患者死亡,158 例(25.7%)发生复合终点事件。多变量 Cox 回归分析显示,当 4S-AF 评分建议采用心率控制策略时,与该建议不一致与预后不良无关。当 4S-AF 建议节律控制时,与全因死亡(HR 7.59;95%CI 1.65-35.01)和复合终点(HR 2.69;95%CI 1.19-6.06)风险增加相关。4S-AF 方案是全面评估 AF 患者和辅助决策过程的有用工具。与 4S-AF 方案节律控制建议不一致与不良临床结局相关。