Evaluation of New Potential Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice, is associated with an increase in mortality and morbidity due to its high potential to cause stroke and systemic thromboembolism. Inflammatory mechanisms may play a role in the pathogenesis of AF and its maintenance. We aimed to evaluate a range of inflammatory markers as potentially involved in the pathophysiology of individuals with nonvalvular AF (NVAF). A total of 105 subjects were enrolled and divided into two groups: patients with NVAF (n = 55, mean age 72 ± 8 years) and a control group of individuals in sinus rhythm (n = 50, mean age 71 ± 8 years). Inflammatory-related mediators were quantified in plasma samples by using Cytometric Bead Array and Multiplex immunoassay. Subjects with NVAF presented significantly elevated values of interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interferon-gamma, growth differentiation factor-15, myeloperoxidase, as well as IL-4, interferon-gamma-induced protein (IP-10), monokine induced by interferon-gamma, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and serum amyloid A in comparison with controls. However, after multivariate regression analysis adjusting for confounding factors, only IL-6, IL-10, TNF, and IP-10 remained significantly associated with AF. We provided a basis for the study of inflammatory markers whose association with AF has not been addressed before, such as IP-10, in addition to supporting evidence about molecules that had previously been associated with the disease. We expect to contribute to the discovery of markers that can be implemented in clinical practice hereafter.

Evaluation of serum haptoglobin levels and Hp1-Hp2 polymorphism in the haptoglobin gene in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an arrhythmia that involves structural and electrophysiological abnormalities. Many of the AF-related clinical conditions are associated with an increase in inflammatory and oxidative factors. Haptoglobin (Hp) is an acute phase protein whose biological role is to promote clearance of free hemoglobin (Hb). In addition, for being considered an inflammatory marker, Hp represents a protective mechanism against the oxidative effects of Hb. The Hp1-Hp2 polymorphism at Hp locus can lead to three phenotypes related to structural and functional differences in the protein. The objective of this study were to evaluate Hp levels and Hp1-Hp2 polymorphism at Hp locus in patients with AF compared to a control group. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 65 patients with AF and 54 individuals without the arrhythmia. Biochemical parameters were determined using Vitros system, plasma levels of Hp were measured in serum samples by using ELISA method and polymorphisms were verified by PCR technique. Plasma Hp levels, as well as allelic and genotypic frequency, were not associated with AF. The levels of Hp also did not differ among the genotypes according to the applied models. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that Hp levels and Hp1-Hp2 polymorphism are not associated to AF.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Atrial Fibrillation and Use of Rivaroxaban: Performance of the Prothrombin Time / INR as a Function of Time After Blood Collection

Abstract Background Traditionally, the most effective therapy in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has been oral anticoagulation with vitamin K inhibitors, particularly warfarin, whose disadvantages and adverse effects have led to their replacement by "direct oral anticoagulants", as factor X inhibitor. Objectives This study aimed to conduct a brief approach on atrial fibrillation (AF) and use of Rivaroxaban, and to comparatively evaluate the prothrombin time / International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) in patients with AF in use of this oral anticoagulant, depending on the time elapsed between the last administration of the drug and the time of blood sample venipuncture. Methods We evaluated 34 patients with AF in use of Rivaroxaban by using PT / INR, distributed into a subgroup with blood collection time ≤ 12 hours (n = 7) and > 12 hours after the last drug intake (n = 27). Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the groups and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results An analysis as a function of time between the Rivaroxaban intake and blood collection, revealed that PT / INR suffers the greatest effect up to 12 hours after ingestion of the drug, dropping to levels close to normal in subsequent hours before the next dose. Conclusion We concluded that, in contrast to warfarin, the knowledge of the time interval between drug intake and blood collection from patients taking Rivaroxaban is essential to properly interpret a laboratory test to assess hemostasis, particularly PT and its derivatives. Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0

Implications for Clinical Practice from a Multicenter Survey of Heart Failure Management Centers.

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Avaliação do Seguimento de 1 Ano dos Pacientes Incluídos no Registro da Prática Clínica em Pacientes de Alto Risco Cardiovascular (REACT) / Evaluation of 1-Year Follow-up of Patients Included in the Registry of Clinical Practice in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk (REACT)

Resumo Fundamento Na prática clínica, há evidências de falhas na prescrição de terapias baseadas em evidências para pacientes de alto risco cardiovascular. Entretanto, no Brasil, ainda são insuficientes os dados sobre a evolução ao longo de 1 ano desses pacientes. Objetivos Descrição no acompanhamento de 12 meses da utilização de terapias baseadas em evidência e da ocorrência de desfechos cardiovasculares maiores e seus principais preditores em um registro brasileiro multicêntrico de pacientes de alto risco cardiovascular. Métodos Estudo observacional prospectivo que documentou a prática clínica ambulatorial de indivíduos acima de 45 anos e de alto risco cardiovascular tanto em prevenção primária como secundária. Os pacientes foram seguidos por 1 ano e avaliou-se a prescrição de terapias baseadas em evidência e a ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores (infarto agudo do miocárdio [IAM], acidente vascular cerebral [AVC], parada cardíaca e mortalidade por causa cardiovascular). Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significantes. Resultados De julho de 2010 até agosto de 2014, 5.076 indivíduos foram incluídos em 48 centros, sendo 91% dos 4.975 pacientes elegíveis acompanhados em centros de cardiologia e 68,6% em prevenção secundária. Em 1 ano, o uso concomitante de antiplaquetários, estatinas e inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina (IECA) reduziu de 28,3% para 24,2% (valor de p < 0,001). A taxa de eventos cardiovasculares maiores foi de 5,46%, e os preditores identificados foram: idade, pacientes em prevenção secundária e nefropatia diabética. Conclusões Neste grande registro nacional de pacientes de alto risco cardiovascular, foram identificados preditores de risco semelhantes aos registros internacionais, porém a adesão da prescrição médica a terapias baseadas em evidência esteve abaixo dos dados da literatura internacional e apresentou piora significativa em 1 ano. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Abstract Background In clinical practice, there is evidence of failure to prescribe evidence-based therapies for patients at high cardiovascular risk. However, in Brazil, data on 1-year outcomes of these patients remain insufficient. Objectives To describe the use of evidence-based therapies and the occurrence of major cardiovascular outcomes and their major predictors in a 12-month follow-up of a Brazilian multicenter registry of patients at high cardiovascular risk. Methods This prospective observational study documented the outpatient clinical practice of managing patients over 45 years of age and of high cardiovascular risk in both primary and secondary prevention. Patients were followed-up for 1 year, and the prescription of evidence-based therapies and the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, and cardiovascular death) were assessed. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results From July 2010 to August 2014, a total of 5076 individuals were enrolled in 48 centers, 91% of the 4975 eligible patients were followed-up in cardiology centers, and 68.6% were in secondary prevention. At 1 year, the concomitant use of antiplatelet agents, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduced from 28.3% to 24.2% (p < 0.001). Major cardiovascular event rate was 5.46%, and the identified predictors were age, patients in secondary prevention, and diabetic nephropathy. Conclusions In this large national registry of patients at high cardiovascular risk, risk predictors similar to those of international registries were identified, but medical prescription adherence to evidence-based therapies was inferior and significantly worsened at 1 year. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

Thrombin Generation and other hemostatic parameters in patients with atrial fibrillation in use of warfarin or rivaroxaban.

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) present hyperactivation of both platelets and coagulation leading to a hypercoagulable state which contributes to an increased risk of thromboembolism. Therefore, one of the main strategies for treatment of AF is prevention of these events through the use of oral anticoagulants (OAC). The aim of this study was to evaluate hemostasis as a whole in patients with non-valvular AF undergoing warfarin or rivaroxaban by thrombin generation test (TGT), in addition to monocyte-platelet aggregates (MPA), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa), and platelet (PMP) and endothelium (EMP) microparticles, compared to age and sex matched controls. PT/INR for OAC use was also determined. In patients taking OAC, compared to control group, a decrease in TGT (p = 0.000 for all parameters) were observed. Patients taking warfarin showed to be more hypocoagulable, presenting lower levels of ETP (p = 0.000) and peak (p = 0.002) than patients using rivaroxaban. Patients on warfarin use with INR > 3 had also lower levels of ETP (p = 0.01) and peak (p = 0.006). A decrease in ETP (p = 0.03) and peak (p = 0.02) values was also observed in patients using rivaroxaban with PT > 21.4 s. Patients using warfarin (p = 0.000) and rivaroxaban (p = 0.000) presented lower levels of MPA in relation to control group. It was also observed in patients using warfarin, lower GPIIb/IIIa levels in relation to control group (p = 0.011). Patients taking rivaroxaban (p = 0.003) and warfarin (p = 0.001) had higher PMP levels compared to control group. There was no difference in levels of EMP between the groups (p = 0.0536). The present study reinforces the usefulness of OAC in AF, which decisively contribute to a better management of the disease preventing possible complications.

Evaluation of 1-Year Follow-up of Patients Included in the Registry of Clinical Practice in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk (REACT). / Avaliação do Seguimento de 1 Ano dos Pacientes Incluídos no Registro da Prática Clínica em Pacientes de Alto Risco Cardiovascular (REACT).

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, there is evidence of failure to prescribe evidence-based therapies for patients at high cardiovascular risk. However, in Brazil, data on 1-year outcomes of these patients remain insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of evidence-based therapies and the occurrence of major cardiovascular outcomes and their major predictors in a 12-month follow-up of a Brazilian multicenter registry of patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This prospective observational study documented the outpatient clinical practice of managing patients over 45 years of age and of high cardiovascular risk in both primary and secondary prevention. Patients were followed-up for 1 year, and the prescription of evidence-based therapies and the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, and cardiovascular death) were assessed. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From July 2010 to August 2014, a total of 5076 individuals were enrolled in 48 centers, 91% of the 4975 eligible patients were followed-up in cardiology centers, and 68.6% were in secondary prevention. At 1 year, the concomitant use of antiplatelet agents, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduced from 28.3% to 24.2% (p < 0.001). Major cardiovascular event rate was 5.46%, and the identified predictors were age, patients in secondary prevention, and diabetic nephropathy. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national registry of patients at high cardiovascular risk, risk predictors similar to those of international registries were identified, but medical prescription adherence to evidence-based therapies was inferior and significantly worsened at 1 year. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0).

FUNDAMENTO: Na prática clínica, há evidências de falhas na prescrição de terapias baseadas em evidências para pacientes de alto risco cardiovascular. Entretanto, no Brasil, ainda são insuficientes os dados sobre a evolução ao longo de 1 ano desses pacientes. OBJETIVOS: Descrição no acompanhamento de 12 meses da utilização de terapias baseadas em evidência e da ocorrência de desfechos cardiovasculares maiores e seus principais preditores em um registro brasileiro multicêntrico de pacientes de alto risco cardiovascular. MÉTODOS: Estudo observacional prospectivo que documentou a prática clínica ambulatorial de indivíduos acima de 45 anos e de alto risco cardiovascular tanto em prevenção primária como secundária. Os pacientes foram seguidos por 1 ano e avaliou-se a prescrição de terapias baseadas em evidência e a ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores (infarto agudo do miocárdio [IAM], acidente vascular cerebral [AVC], parada cardíaca e mortalidade por causa cardiovascular). Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significantes. RESULTADOS: De julho de 2010 até agosto de 2014, 5.076 indivíduos foram incluídos em 48 centros, sendo 91% dos 4.975 pacientes elegíveis acompanhados em centros de cardiologia e 68,6% em prevenção secundária. Em 1 ano, o uso concomitante de antiplaquetários, estatinas e inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina (IECA) reduziu de 28,3% para 24,2% (valor de p < 0,001). A taxa de eventos cardiovasculares maiores foi de 5,46%, e os preditores identificados foram: idade, pacientes em prevenção secundária e nefropatia diabética. CONCLUSÕES: Neste grande registro nacional de pacientes de alto risco cardiovascular, foram identificados preditores de risco semelhantes aos registros internacionais, porém a adesão da prescrição médica a terapias baseadas em evidência esteve abaixo dos dados da literatura internacional e apresentou piora significativa em 1 ano. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0).

Implications for clinical practice from a multicenter survey of heart failure management centers

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Comparison of Inflammatory Mediators in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Using Warfarin or Rivaroxaban.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia associated with high risk of venous thromboembolism. Inflammatory mechanisms may be involved in the pathophysiology of AF and in the AF-related thrombogenesis, and patients with AF might benefit from the use of anticoagulants with anti-inflammatory properties. However, the evidence is still scarce, and it points out the need of trials seeking to investigate the levels of inflammatory mediators in patients with AF under different anticoagulant therapies. Therefore, this study was designed to define whether patients with AF treated either with an activated coagulation factor X (FXa) inhibitor (rivaroxaban) or with a vitamin K inhibitor (warfarin) present changes in peripheral levels of inflammatory mediators, mainly cytokines and chemokines. Methods: A total of 127 subjects were included in this study, divided into three groups: patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) using warfarin (N = 42), patients with NVAF using rivaroxaban (N = 29), and controls (N = 56). Plasma levels of inflammatory mediators were quantified by immunoassays. Results: Patients with AF (both warfarin and rivaroxaban groups) presented increased levels of inflammatory cytokines in comparison with controls. The use of rivaroxaban was associated with decreased levels of inflammatory cytokines in comparison with warfarin. On the other hand, patients with AF using rivaroxaban presented increased levels of the chemokines (MCP-1 in comparison with warfarin users; MIG and IP-10 in comparison with controls). Conclusions: AF is associated with an inflammatory profile that was less pronounced in patients on rivaroxaban in comparison with warfarin users. Further studies are necessary to assess the clinical implications of our results and whether patients with AF would benefit from rivaroxaban anti-inflammatory effects.