Freek W.A. Verheugt

Prof. Freek W.A. Verheugt

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2011 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FVFreek W.A. Verheugt
Freek W.A. Verheugt
SSSteven R. Steinhubl
Steven R. Steinhubl
MHMartial Hamon
Martial Hamon
HDHarald Darius
Harald Darius
GSGabriel Steg
Gabriel Steg
GSGregg W. Stone
Gregg W. Stone

3 January 2012 in Trials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RLRamon B van Loon
Ramon B van Loon
GVGerrit Veen
Gerrit Veen
LBLeo H B Baur
Leo H B Baur
OKOtto Kamp
Otto Kamp
JBJean G F Bronzwaer
Jean G F Bronzwaer
ARAlbert C van Rossum
Albert C van Rossum
Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) not treated with primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at risk for recurrent ischemia, especially when viability in the infarct-area is present. Therefore, an invasive strategy with PCI of the infarct-related coronary artery in patients with viability would reduce the occurrence of a composite end point of death, reinfarction, or unstable angina (UA).

1 July 2015 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FVFreek W.A. Verheugt
Freek W.A. Verheugt
CGChristopher B Granger
Christopher B Granger

25 May 2021 in European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KFKeith A A Fox
Keith A A Fox
SVSaverio Virdone
Saverio Virdone
KPKaren S Pieper
Karen S Pieper
JBJean-Pierre Bassand
Jean-Pierre Bassand
ACA John Camm
A John Camm
FIfor the GARFIELD-AF Investigators
for the GARFIELD-AF Investigators
To determine whether the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD–Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) integrated risk tool predicts mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding for up to 2 years after new-onset AF and to assess how this risk tool performs compared with CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED. Potential predictors of events included demographic and clinical characteristics, choice of treatment, and lifestyle factors. A Cox proportional hazards model was identified for each outcome by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator methods. Indices were evaluated in comparison with CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED risk predictors. Models were validated internally and externally in ORBIT-AF and Danish nationwide registries. Among the 52 080 patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF, 52 032 had follow-up data. The GARFIELD-AF risk tool outperformed CHA2DS2-VASc for all-cause mortality in all cohorts. The GARFIELD-AF risk score was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for non-haemorrhagic stroke, and it outperformed HAS-BLED for major bleeding in internal validation and in the Danish AF cohort. In very low- to low-risk patients [CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)], the GARFIELD-AF risk score offered strong discriminatory value for all the endpoints when compared to CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED. The GARFIELD-AF tool also included the effect of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy, thus allowing clinicians to compare the expected outcome of different anticoagulant treatment decisions [i.e. no OAC, non-vitamin K antagonist (VKA) oral anticoagulants, or VKAs]. The GARFIELD-AF risk tool outperformed CHA2DS2-VASc at predicting death and non-haemorrhagic stroke, and it outperformed HAS-BLED for major bleeding in overall as well as in very low- to low-risk group patients with AF. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF: NCT01090362, ORBIT-AF I: NCT01165710; ORBIT-AF II: NCT01701817.

20 December 2017 in European Heart Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FVFreek W.A. Verheugt
Freek W.A. Verheugt
HGHaiyan Gao
Haiyan Gao
WMWael Al Mahmeed
Wael Al Mahmeed
GAGiuseppe Ambrosio
Giuseppe Ambrosio
PAPantep Angchaisuksiri
Pantep Angchaisuksiri
FIfor the GARFIELD-AF Investigators
for the GARFIELD-AF Investigators
Current atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines discourage antiplatelet (AP) monotherapy as alternative to anticoagulants (ACs). Why AP only is still used is largely unknown. Factors associated with AP monotherapy prescription were analysed in GARFIELD-AF, a registry of patients with newly diagnosed (≤6 weeks) AF and ≥1 investigator-determined stroke risk factor. We analysed 51 270 patients from 35 countries enrolled into five sequential cohorts between 2010 and 2016. Overall, 20.7% of patients received AP monotherapy, 52.1% AC monotherapy, and 14.1% AP + AC. Most AP monotherapy (82.5%) and AC monotherapy (86.8%) patients were CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. Compared with patients on AC monotherapy, AP monotherapy patients were frequently Chinese (vs. Caucasian, odds ratio 2.73) and more likely to have persistent AF (1.32), history of coronary artery disease (2.41) or other vascular disease (1.67), bleeding (2.11), or dementia (1.81). The odds for AP monotherapy increased with 5 years of age increments for patients ≥75 years (1.24) but decreased with age increments for patients 55–75 years (0.86). Antiplatelet monotherapy patients were less likely to have paroxysmal (0.67) or permanent AF (0.57), history of embolism (0.56), or alcohol use (0.90). With each cohort, AP monotherapy declined (P<0.0001), especially non-indicated use. AP + AC and no antithrombotic therapy were unchanged. However, even in 2015 and 2016, about 50% of AP-treated patients had no indication except AF (71% were CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2). Prescribing AP monotherapy in newly diagnosed AF has declined, but even nowadays a substantial proportion of AP-treated patients with AF have no indication for AP. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

1 August 2019 in JACC
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FVFreek W.A. Verheugt
Freek W.A. Verheugt
JBJurriën M. Ten Berg
Jurriën M. Ten Berg
RSRobert F. Storey
Robert F. Storey
TCThomas Cuisset
Thomas Cuisset
CGChristopher B. Granger
Christopher B. Granger