TY - JOUR
T1 - Atrial fibrillation burden
T2 - Stepping beyond the categorical characterization
AU - Doundoulakis, Ioannis
AU - Nedios, Sotirios
AU - Zafeiropoulos, Stefanos
AU - Vitolo, Marco
AU - Della Rocca, Domenico Giovanni
AU - Kordalis, Athanasios
AU - Shamloo, Alireza Sepehri
AU - Koliastasis, Leonidas
AU - Marcon, Lorenzo
AU - Chiotis, Sotirios
AU - Sorgente, Antonio
AU - Soulaidopoulos, Stergios
AU - Imberti, Jacopo F
AU - Botis, Michail
AU - Pannone, Luigi
AU - Gatzoulis, Konstantinos A
AU - Sarkozy, Andrea
AU - Stavrakis, Stavros
AU - Boriani, Giuseppe
AU - Boveda, Serge
AU - Tsiachris, Dimitris
AU - Chierchia, Gian-Battista
AU - de Asmundis, Carlo
N1 - Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024/8/27
Y1 - 2024/8/27
N2 - Traditional classifications categorize atrial fibrillation (AF) into paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent, but recent advancements in monitoring have revealed AF as a continuous variable, challenging existing paradigms. AF burden, defined basically as the amount of time spent in AF during a monitored period, has emerged as a crucial metric. This review assesses the evolving landscape of AF burden and its measurement methods, diagnostic modalities, and impact on outcomes. Guidelines suggest individualized approaches, combining AF burden with clinical scores (CHA2DS2-VASc), but studies have challenged this. Addressing the impact of AF burden on patients' quality of life before or after ablation is also crucial. Although continuous monitoring technologies offer promising avenues, the field faces challenges, such as defining clinically relevant thresholds. Future research should focus on refining these, designing trials centered around AF burden, and evaluating the efficacy of interventions in reducing AF burden, ultimately paving the way for personalized management strategies.
AB - Traditional classifications categorize atrial fibrillation (AF) into paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent, but recent advancements in monitoring have revealed AF as a continuous variable, challenging existing paradigms. AF burden, defined basically as the amount of time spent in AF during a monitored period, has emerged as a crucial metric. This review assesses the evolving landscape of AF burden and its measurement methods, diagnostic modalities, and impact on outcomes. Guidelines suggest individualized approaches, combining AF burden with clinical scores (CHA2DS2-VASc), but studies have challenged this. Addressing the impact of AF burden on patients' quality of life before or after ablation is also crucial. Although continuous monitoring technologies offer promising avenues, the field faces challenges, such as defining clinically relevant thresholds. Future research should focus on refining these, designing trials centered around AF burden, and evaluating the efficacy of interventions in reducing AF burden, ultimately paving the way for personalized management strategies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85204781369&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.08.051
DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.08.051
M3 - Article
C2 - 39197738
JO - Heart Rhythm
JF - Heart Rhythm
SN - 1547-5271
ER -