The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Comprehensive guidelines for the management of Atrial Fibrillation

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines program was developed to aid clinicians in the management of these complex patients, as well as to provide direction to policy makers and health care systems regarding related issues. The most recent comprehensive CCS AF guidelines update was published in 2010. Since then, periodic updates were published dealing with rapidly changing areas. However, since 2010 a large number of developments had accumulated in a wide range of areas, motivating the committee to complete a thorough guideline review. The 2020 iteration of the CCS AF guidelines represents a comprehensive renewal that integrates, updates, and replaces the past decade of guidelines, recommendations, and practical tips. It is intended to be used by practicing clinicians across all disciplines who care for patients with AF. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to evaluate recommendation strength and the quality of evidence. Areas of focus include: AF classification and definitions, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, screening and opportunistic AF detection, detection and management of modifiable risk factors, integrated approach to AF management, stroke prevention, arrhythmia management, sex differences, and AF in special populations. Extensive use is made of tables and figures to synthesize important material and present key concepts. This document should be an important aid for knowledge translation and a tool to help improve clinical management of this important and challenging arrhythmia.

Le programme de lignes directrices de la Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC) en matière de fibrillation auriculaire (FA) a été élaboré pour aider les cliniciens à prendre en charge ces patients complexes, ainsi que pour orienter les décideurs politiques et les systèmes de soins de santé sur des questions connexes. La dernière édition complète des lignes directrices de la SCC en matière de FA a été publiée en 2010. Depuis lors, des mises à jour périodiques ont été publiées, traitant de domaines en évolution rapide. Cependant, en 2020, un grand nombre de développements s'y étaient ajoutés, couvrant un large éventail de domaines, ce qui a motivé le comité à créer une refonte complète des lignes directrices. L'édition 2020 des lignes directrices de la SCC en matière de FA représente un renouvellement complet qui intègre, met à jour et remplace les lignes directrices, les recommandations et les conseils pratiques des dix dernières années. Elle est destinée à être utilisée par les cliniciens praticiens de toutes les disciplines qui s'occupent de patients souffrant de FA. L'approche GRADE (Gradation des Recommandations, de l'Appréciation, du Développement et des Évaluations) a été utilisée pour évaluer la pertinence des recommandations et la qualité des résultats. Les domaines d'intérêt incluent : la classification et les définitions de la FA, son épidémiologie, sa physiopathologie, l'évaluation clinique, le dépistage de la FA, la détection et la gestion des facteurs de risque modifiables, l'approche intégrée de la gestion de la FA, la prévention des accidents vasculaires cérébraux, la gestion de l'arythmie, les différences entre les sexes et la FA dans des populations particulières. Des tableaux et figures ont été largement utilisés pour synthétiser les éléments importants et présenter les concepts clés. Ce document devrait représenter une aide importante pour l'intégration des connaissances et un outil pour aider à améliorer la gestion clinique de cette arythmie importante et difficile à traiter.

Approach to evaluation of fever in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To define the optimal model of care for patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy who experience a fever. Fever is a common symptom in patients receiving chemotherapy, but the approach to evaluation of fever is not standardized. METHODS: We conducted a search for existing guidelines and a systematic review of the primary literature from database inception to November 2015. Full-text reports and conference abstracts were considered for inclusion. The search focused on the following topics: the relationship between temperature and poor outcome; predictors for the development of febrile neutropenia (FN); the timing, location, and personnel involved in fever assessment; and the provision of information to patients receiving chemotherapy. RESULTS: Eight guidelines and 38 studies were included. None of the guidelines were directly relevant to the target population because they dealt primarily with the management of FN after diagnosis. The primary studies tended to include fever as one of many symptoms assessed in the setting of chemotherapy. Temperature level was a weak predictor of poor outcomes. We did not find validated prediction models for identifying patients at risk of FN among patients receiving chemotherapy. Several studies presented approaches to symptom management that included fever among the symptoms, but results were not mature enough to merit widespread adoption. CONCLUSION: Despite the frequency and risks of fever in the setting of chemotherapy, there is limited evidence to define who needs urgent assessment, where the assessment should be performed, and how quickly. Future research in this area is greatly needed to inform new models of care.

2016 Focused Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Guidelines Committee provides periodic reviews of new data to produce focused updates that address clinically important advances in AF management. This 2016 Focused Update deals with: (1) the management of antithrombotic therapy for AF patients in the context of the various clinical presentations of coronary artery disease; (2) real-life data with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants; (3) the use of antidotes for the reversal of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants; (4) digoxin as a rate control agent; (5) perioperative anticoagulation management; and (6) AF surgical therapy including the prevention and treatment of AF after cardiac surgery. The recommendations were developed with the same methodology used for the initial 2010 guidelines and the 2012 and 2014 Focused Updates. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) standards, individual studies and literature were reviewed for quality and bias; the literature review process and evidence tables are included in the Supplementary Material, and on the CCS Web site. The section on concomitant AF and coronary artery disease was developed in collaboration with the CCS Antiplatelet Guidelines Committee. Details of the updated recommendations are presented, along with their background and rationale. This document is linked to an updated summary of all CCS AF Guidelines recommendations, from 2010 to the present 2016 Focused Update

Approach to fever assessment in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This guideline was prepared by the Fever Assessment Guideline Development Group, a group organized by the Program in Evidence-Based Care at the request of the Cancer Care Ontario Systemic Treatment Program. The mandate was to develop a standardized approach (in terms of definitions, information, and education) for the assessment of fever in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: The guideline development methods included a search for existing guidelines, literature searches in medline and embase for systematic reviews and primary studies, internal review by content and methodology experts, and external review by targeted experts and intended users. RESULTS: The search identified eight guidelines that had partial relevance to the topic of the present guideline and thirty-eight primary studies. The studies were mostly noncomparative prospective or retrospective studies. Few studies directly addressed the topic of fever except as one among many symptoms or adverse effects associated with chemotherapy. The recommendations concerning fever definition are supported mainly by other existing guidelines. No evidence was found that directly pertained to the assessment of fever before a diagnosis of febrile neutropenia was made. However, some studies evaluated approaches to symptom management that included fever among the symptoms. Few studies directly addressed information needs and resources for managing fever in cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Fever in patients with cancer who are receiving systemic therapy is a common and potentially serious symptom that requires prompt assessment, but currently, evidence to inform best practices concerning when, where, and by whom that assessment is done is very limited.

Does routine symptom screening with ESAS decrease ED visits in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the provincial cancer agency in Ontario, Canada initiated a wide-scale program to screen for symptoms in the cancer population using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of screening with ESAS on emergency department (ED) visit rates in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked administrative health care data from across the province of Ontario, Canada. The cohort included all women aged ≥18 who were diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between January 2007 and December 2009 and received adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 months of diagnosis. Using an adjusted recurrent event model, we examined the association of screening with ESAS at a clinic visit on the ED visit rate. RESULTS: The relative rate of ED visits was 0.57 when prior ESAS screening occurred compared to when it did not. The relative rate of ED visits was 0.83 when the prior number of ESAS screens was modeled as a continuous variable. Alternatively stated, the rate of ED visits was 43 % lower among patients previously screened with ESAS compared to those not previously screened. For each additional prior ESAS assessment, there was a 17 % decreased rate of ED visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that screening with ESAS is associated with decreased ED visits. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the effectiveness of routinely documenting a patient reported outcome on ED visits, in a real-world setting.