Cerebral haemorrhage in the patient with atrial fibrillation: do we employ the direct oral anticoagulants without waiting too long?

Intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) is the most feared haemorrhagic complication of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT), although the risk is significantly lower with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin. Intracranial haemorrhage is generally considered, by clinicians, to be an absolute contraindication to starting or resuming OAT in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). On the other hand, the pivotal trials with DOACs excluded patients with previous ICH. Observational studies actually indicate a net clinical benefit in favour of DOAC in patients with AF and previous ICH. This benefit is confirmed by randomized clinical trials which, however, have the limitation of the small number of cases, but larger clinical trials comparing DOACs vs. aspirin or no therapy are underway. While OAT is certainly contraindicated in patients with lobar ICH and cerebral amyloid angiopathy, in other cases, the decision must be made in the individual patient through an accurate balance between thromboembolic risk and haemorrhagic risk and a multidisciplinary cardio-neurological evaluation.

Ischaemic stroke in the absence of documented atrial fibrillation: is there who could benefit from anticoagulant therapy?

About 25% of ischaemic strokes are of cryptogenic origin and a significant proportion of them has a certain embolic nature, and for these patients the term embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) has been coined. In the absence of subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) identifiable through prolonged electrocardiogram monitoring, atrial cardiomyopathy, demonstrable through non-invasive cardiac imaging, aortic plaques and heart failure with preserved sinus rhythm, have been recognized among the potential causes of ESUS. In patients with ESUS, randomized clinical trials performed so far have failed to demonstrate a benefit of therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). However, it is possible that in patients in whom the presence of atrial cardiomyopathy is ascertained there may be a benefit of anticoagulant therapy in secondary prevention after ESUS. In patients with aortic plaques associated with a thrombotic component and in those with heart failure and preserved sinus rhythm in the absence of AF but with a high congestive heart failure, hypertension age, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease (CHA2DS2-VASc) score, the decision on anticoagulant therapy with DOACs could be made in the individual patient even in the absence of evidence from clinical trials.

Long-term injury after Takotsubo syndrome (stress cardiomyopathy).

Takotsubo syndrome is a clinical condition characterized by transient impairment of left ventricular contractility, in association with symptoms, increase in indices of myocardial necrosis, as well as electrocardiographic changes, but without a coronary culprit lesion, and often after a significant psychological or physical stress. Albeit very similar to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as far as presentation and clinical course, Takotsubo syndrome was considered, up until recently, a condition with very favourable long-term prognosis, in view of the frequent complete functional recovery. More recently, several retrospective observational studies as well as registers, unexpectedly called attention to a significant incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, not limited to the recovery period but also during the long-term follow-up, in a way very similar to the outcome of patients after ACS. Several negative prognostic factors have been isolated, such as physical stress as trigger of the condition, the presence of severe left ventricular dysfunction, and the consequent cardiogenic shock during the acute phase. These factors are able to classify better the patient's prognosis, both in the short- and long-term, and identify patients requiring a more stringent clinical follow-up, considering the higher likelihood of adverse cardiovascular events.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 drugs: are we sure they are useful only in the treatment of diabetes?

The sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new class of oral anti-diabetic drugs acting through the inhibition of renal reabsorbtion of glucose. Three important randomized clinical trial in diabetic patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors (vs. placebo), demonstrated a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events, but only in patients with known atherosclerotic disease, and a clear-cut and early reduction in hospital admissions for heart failure in patients in primary as well as secondary prevention settings. This latter information prompted the design of a recent study the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin And Prevention Of Adverse-outcomes In Heart Failure) trial, comparing dapagliflozin vs. placebo, and showing a significant reduction of clinical relevant episodes of heart failure in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, regardless the presence of diabetes mellitus. The mechanism by which the SGLT2 inhibitors exert their anti-heart failure action is not well understood but appears to be independent from its hypoglycaemic action. These results, along with the scarcity of adverse side effects of the drug, render dapagliflozin a new tool in the treatment of heart failure.