Atrial fibrillation (AF) has different underlying substrates. Atrial remodeling involves electrophysiological and structural abnormalities that promote the development and perpetuation of AF. Experimental and clinical data indicate that inflammation is implicated in the pathophysiology of atrial remodeling. The mechanistic links between atrial remodeling and inflammation are complex while diverse underlying diseases and conditions may affect these pathways. Inflammatory markers have also been associated with AF development, recurrence, perpetuation, total AF burden as well as with thromboembolic complications. The development of specific anti‐inflammatory interventions in this setting seems to be challenging and complicated. Several agents with pleiotropic properties, including anti‐inflammatory, have been tested in experimental and clinical settings with variable results. This updated review provides a concise overview of all available data regarding the role of inflammation in AF including the predictive role of inflammatory markers. Also, current knowledge and future directions on anti‐inflammatory strategies are critically discussed.

Aims: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) annual incidence is 0.6–1% in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≥40%. No recommendations for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use exist in this population. Methods and results: We introduced a combined non-invasive/invasive risk stratification approach in post-MI ischaemia-free patients, with LVEF ≥ 40%, in a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study. Patients with at least one positive electrocardiographic non-invasive risk factor (NIRF): premature ventricular complexes, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, late potentials, prolonged QTc, increased T-wave alternans, reduced heart rate variability, abnormal deceleration capacity with abnormal turbulence, were referred for programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS), with ICDs offered to those inducible. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major arrhythmic event (MAE), namely sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, appropriate ICD activation or SCD. We screened and included 575 consecutive patients (mean age 57 years, LVEF 50.8%). Of them, 204 (35.5%) had at least one positive NIRF. Forty-one of 152 patients undergoing PVS (27–7.1% of total sample) were inducible. Thirty-seven (90.2%) of them received an ICD. Mean follow-up was 32 months and no SCDs were observed, while 9 ICDs (1.57% of total screened population) were appropriately activated. None patient without NIRFs or with NIRFs but negative PVS met the primary endpoint. The algorithm yielded the following: sensitivity 100%, specificity 93.8%, positive predictive value 22%, and negative predictive value 100%. Conclusion: The two-step approach of the PRESERVE EF study detects a subpopulation of post-MI patients with preserved LVEF at risk for MAEs that can be effectively addressed with an ICD. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02124018

Atrial fibrosis is a hallmark of atrial cardiomyopathy and plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation (AF), contributing to its onset and progression. The mechanisms underlying atrial fibrosis are multifaceted, involving stretch-induced fibroblast activation, oxidative stress, inflammation, and coagulation pathways. Variations in fibrosis types—reactive and replacement fibrosis—are influenced by patient-specific factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities, complicating therapeutic approaches. The heterogeneity of fibrosis leads to distinct electrophysiological abnormalities that promote AF via reentrant activity and enhanced automaticity mechanisms. Despite advancements in imaging, such as late gadolinium enhancement CMR and electroanatomical mapping, challenges in accurately quantifying fibrosis persist. Emerging therapeutic strategies include antifibrotic agents targeting the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, novel pathways like TGF-β signaling, and cardio-metabolic drugs like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Innovative interventions, including microRNA modulation and lipid nanoparticle-based therapies, show promise but require validation. Knowledge gaps remain in correlating clinical outcomes with fibrosis patterns and optimizing diagnostic tools. Future research should focus on precise phenotyping, integrating advanced imaging with molecular biomarkers, and conducting robust trials to evaluate antifibrotic therapies’ efficacy in reducing AF burden and related complications.

Atrial remodelling involves electrophysiological and structural abnormalities that promote the development and perpetuation of atrial fibrillation. Experimental and clinical data indicate that oxidative stress is implicated in the pathophysiology of atrial remodelling. The mechanistic links between atrial remodelling and oxidative stress are complex with several underlying diseases and conditions may affect these pathways. Therefore, the development of antioxidant interventions in this setting remains difficult. Besides classical antioxidant compounds, several agents with pleiotropic effects, including anti-inflammatory and antioxidant, have been tested in experimental and clinical settings with variable results. Strategies applying conventional antioxidants in specific situations such as postoperative atrial fibrillation show beneficial effects, especially the two-step regimen of antioxidants combination. Of note, there are limited data on the development of strategies that target specific sources of reactive oxygen species implicated in atrial remodelling. Lifestyle, diet, and risk factors modification is a complementary promising approach. This updated review provides a concise and critical overview of all available data regarding oxidative stress and its modulation in atrial fibrillation. Future directions on this exciting field are also discussed.