Objective The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway has been recently proposed as a holistic approach for the comprehensive management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed a systematic review of current evidence for the use of the ABC pathway on clinical outcomes. Methods and Results We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of ABC-pathway-adherent management in AF patients, and its impact on clinical outcomes (all-cause death, cardiovascular death, stroke, and major bleeding). Meta-analysis of odds ratio (OR) was performed with random-effects models; subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to account for heterogeneity. Among the eight studies included, we found a pooled prevalence of ABC-adherent management of 21% (95% confidence interval, CI: 13–34%), with a high grade of heterogeneity, explained by the increasing adherence to each ABC criterion. Patients treated according to the ABC pathway showed a lower risk of all-cause death (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.31–0.56), cardiovascular death (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.23–0.58), stroke (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37–0.82) and major bleeding (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51–0.94), with moderate heterogeneity. Prevalence of comorbidities was moderators of heterogeneity for all-cause and cardiovascular death, while longer follow-up was associated with increased effectiveness for all outcomes. Conclusion Adherence to the ABC pathway was suboptimal, being adopted in one in every five patients. Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a reduction in the risk of major adverse outcomes.

Aims: To consolidate evidence to determine (i) the association between cardiovascular risk factors and health outcomes with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); and (ii) the impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular health. Methods and results: An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted. Fourteen medical databases and pre-print servers were searched from 1 January 2020 to 5 November 2020. The review focused on reviews rated as moderate or high-quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Eighty-four reviews were identified; 31 reviews were assessed as moderate quality and one was high-quality. The following risk factors were associated with higher mortality and severe COVID-19: renal disease [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) for mortality 3.07 (2.43–3.88)], diabetes mellitus [OR 2.09 (1.80–2.42)], hypertension [OR 2.50 (2.02–3.11)], smoking history [risk ratio (RR) 1.26 (1.20–1.32)], cerebrovascular disease [RR 2.75 (1.54–4.89)], and cardiovascular disease [OR 2.65 (1.86–3.78)]. Liver disease was associated with higher odds of mortality [OR 2.81 (1.31–6.01)], but not severe COVID-19. Current smoking was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 [RR 1.80 (1.14–2.85)], but not mortality. Obesity associated with higher odds of mortality [OR 2.18 (1.10–4.34)], but there was an absence of evidence for severe COVID-19. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the following incident cardiovascular complications were identified: acute heart failure (2%), myocardial infarction (4%), deep vein thrombosis (7%), myocardial injury (10%), angina (10%), arrhythmias (18%), pulmonary embolism (19%), and venous thromboembolism (25%). Conclusion: Many of the risk factors identified as associated with adverse outcomes with COVID-19 are potentially modifiable. Primary and secondary prevention strategies that target cardiovascular risk factors may improve outcomes for people following COVID-19.

University students are predisposed to stress, which could be even higher in Nursing students since they are directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic given their health training and area of knowledge. Our purpose was to assess the stress levels of Nursing students before and during lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Murcia (Spain), its influence on taking an online exam and how it was affected by physical exercise. This was an observational and prospective study including Nursing students from the second year of the Nursing Degree from 3 February to 23 April 2020. Three measurements were performed: one before lockdown and two during lockdown. Stress increased substantially during lockdown. Financial, family or emotional problems, as well as physical exercise, also increased. Indeed, at 40 days of lockdown, those students with financial, family or emotional problems, and less physical exercise reported significantly higher stress levels. In addition, those who passed the online exam had lower stress levels compared to those who failed. In conclusion, during lockdown, stress in Nursing students increased. This could be triggered by students’ personal problems, and physical exercise may be used as a way to reduce stress. Academic performance was better in those students reporting less stress.

Summary: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is highly effective preventing stroke and mortality in AF, but withdrawal is common in the elderly, when high bleeding risk and when are difficulties achieving an optimal time in therapeutic range (TTR). We analysed the rate of OAC cessation, predisposing factors to cessation and the relation to clinical outcomes in a large ‘real world’ cohort of AF patients over a long follow-up period. Consecutive non-valvular AF outpatients clinically stables for six months were recruited. Rates of cardiovascular events, major bleeding and mortality were recorded and related to OAC cessation. We included 1361 patients (48.7 % male; aged 76, IQR 71–81), followed-up for a median of 6.5 years. During follow-up, 244 patients suffered thrombotic events, 250 suffered from major bleeding and 551 patients died. 10 % of patients stopped OAC. After OAC withdrawal, there were 36 thromboembolic events (22 strokes), 10 major bleedings and 75 deaths. OAC cessation was independently associated with adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.45; 95 % CI 1.01–2.08), stroke/TIA (HR 1.85; 1.17–2.94) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 1.02–1.67). Independent predictors of OAC cessation were age ≥80 (HR 2.29; 1.60–3.29), previous coronary artery disease (HR 0.32; 0.15–0.71), major bleeding (HR 5.00; 3.49–7.15), heart failure (HR 2.38; 1.26–4.47), cancer (HR 5.24; 3.25–8.44) and renal impairment developed during follow-up (HR 2.70; 1.26–5.75). In conclusion, in non-valvular AF patients, cessation of OAC was independently associated with the risk of stroke, adverse cardiovascular events and mortality. Bleeding events and some variables associated with higher bleeding risk are responsible for OAC cessation.Note: The review process for this manuscript was fully handled by Christian Weber, Editor in Chief.Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

In cardiovascular disease (CVD), biomarkers (i.e., “biological markers”) could have multiple roles in understanding the complexity of cardiovascular (CV) pathophysiology and to offer an integrated approach to management. Biomarkers could help in daily practice as a diagnostic tool, to monitor therapy response, to assess prognosis and as early marker of CV damage, or to stratify risk. In recent years, the role of biomarkers in CVD is even more relevant and some have recently been included in clinical management guideline recommendations. The aim of this review is to discuss the recommendations in clinical guidelines of various biomarkers and to review their usefulness in daily clinical practice. Ultimately, a balance is needed between simplicity and practicality for clinical decision-making. Most biomarkers (whether blood, urine, or imaging-based) will improve on clinical risk stratification, but awaiting biomarker results may lead to delays in the initiation of therapy, for example, anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Many biomarkers are nonspecific, being predictive of many CV and non-CV outcomes, so would be better as “rule-out” rather than “rule-in” assessments. Derivation of some biomarkers have also been made in highly selected clinical trial cohorts, where measurement is made at baseline but outcomes determined many years later; given the dynamic nature of risk in the “real world” where patients get older and develop incident risk factors, this may give a false impression of the risk profile. Finally, some laboratory biomarkers have a diurnal variation and inter-/intravariability (and lower limits of detection) in assays, which may be expensive, are added considerations.