The use of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with impaired renal function or undergoing immunosuppressive therapy is limited due to the risk of drug-to-drug interactions and anticoagulation-related adverse events. This article aims to assess the current data on the safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulant-based therapy in the population of kidney transplant recipients and patients with impaired renal function. The most important factors affecting the safety of treatment are the incidence of bleeding events, thromboembolic events, deaths and drug-to-drug interactions. The available data were compared to the findings on warfarin-based anticoagulation. Findings on the use of novel oral anticoagulants in kidney transplant recipients are limited yet promising in terms of safety and efficacy of use. However, current recommendations state that the co-administration of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with several immunosuppressive agents is contraindicated.

Istel HR 2000 in clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy versus standard ECG using aVR lead data. Background: Mobile ECG devices are increasingly used in telecardiology, but the diagnostic utility of the Istel HR 2000 ECG recorder has not been f...

Precision medicine and improving the outcomes of atrial tachycardia ablation: a comprehensive review. Atrial tachycardia (AT) is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia characterized by rapid, abnormal electrical activity originating from the atria. It repre...

Background/Objectives: Along with cardiovascular disease, cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of atrial fibrillation (AF) among patients with active cancer (study group) and those without cancer (control group). Methods: This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with both AF and active cancer referred for consultation to the Cardiac Arrhythmias Outpatient Clinic at our institution in 2022. They were matched in a 1:1 ratio, by age and sex to patients with AF without cancer. The matching criteria for the study and control groups were limited to age and gender. Variables such as comorbidities, atrial fibrillation duration, tumor stage, and treatment were not included in the matching criteria. Results: We examined 216 patients, 57.4% of whom were men. There were 110 patients in the study group with a mean age of 70 (10) years. Several parameters in the study group attracted our particular attention: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was lower (703 pg/mL vs. 1549 pg/mL, p = 0.01), echocardiography revealed smaller left atrial size (43 (6) mm vs. 47 (7) mm, p = 0.015), left ventricular (LV) diastolic dimension (49 mm vs. 52 mm, p = 0.009) and better LV systolic function expressed as LV ejection fraction (54% (9%) vs. 51% (12%), p = 0.025), and global longitudinal strain (−16% (4%) vs. −13% (3%), p = 0.016). Antiarrhythmic pharmacotherapy was used less frequently in the study group, which may also have been due to physicians’ reluctance to treat AF aggressively in a more morbid population. Conclusions: Patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation may have a different clinical profile, suggesting a different pathophysiology. Understanding these differences may help reduce the incidence of AF and improve patient outcomes and prognosis during cancer treatment.