Umut Kocabaş

Background: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Although international guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and treatment, the degree to which clinicians adhere to these guidelines in routine practice remains unclear, particularly in countries with limited national data such as Turkey. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted among oncology specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgical oncologists) and cardiologists practicing across Turkey. A structured, case-based questionnaire comprising 21 multiple-choice questions was distributed electronically via SurveyMonkey. The questionnaire assessed perioperative VTE prophylaxis approaches, VTE risk assessment practices in ambulatory patients, primary and long-term secondary thromboprophylaxis preferences, acute VTE treatment strategies, and management of special clinical scenarios. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and compared between oncologist and cardiologist groups. Results: A total of 84 physicians participated (34 oncologists [40.5%], 50 cardiologists [59.5%]). Perioperative and inpatient VTE prophylaxis practices were largely concordant with guideline recommendations, with 67.9% individualizing prophylaxis decisions and 66.7% initiating prophylaxis in hospitalized immobile patients when not contraindicated. However, only 33.7% routinely performed VTE risk assessment in ambulatory patients, and 64.6% did not use any validated risk scoring system. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the preferred agent for acute VTE treatment (72.6%), while direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) gained preference in long-term secondary thromboprophylaxis (42.2%). No statistically significant differences were observed between oncologists and cardiologists across all survey items (all p > 0.05). Notably, 94.1% of respondents expressed a need to update their knowledge regarding CAT management. Conclusions: While oncologists and cardiologists in Turkey demonstrate general awareness of CAT guidelines, significant gaps persist in VTE risk stratification and primary prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients. The near-universal self-reported need for knowledge updates highlights the urgency for structured multidisciplinary education programs, integration of validated risk scoring tools into clinical workflows, and development of nationally adapted clinical practice guidelines. These findings reflect self-reported practices and may not fully represent actual clinical behavior; future studies incorporating medical record reviews or prescription data are needed to validate these observations.

Aims: The Türkiye Heart Failure (TURK‐HF) registry aims to identify the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) and to assess the implementation of evidence‐based HF therapies in Türkiye. Methods: The TURK‐HF registry is a national, multicenter, prospective, observational study of unselected patients with HF regardless of ejection fraction. A total of 46 investigators from 38 centers in 22 cities across Türkiye participated in the registry. The study investigators will gain access to the electronic case report form via www.turkhf.com website using their usernames and passwords. The baseline assessment of the patients will include sociodemographic data, primary care access information, frailty assessment, health‐related quality of life questionnaire, HF‐related information, medical history and comorbidities, physical examination findings, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data, H ₂ FPEF score calculation, laboratory results, and medical and device‐based HF therapies. The management strategies and potential complications of patients hospitalized with acute HF will be systematically documented. Follow‐up data will be collected at regular outpatient visits every 6 months with a margin of error of 1 month. The clinical endpoints of the TURK‐HF registry were cardiovascular or all‐cause mortality, HF‐related hospitalizations, clinician‐interpreted outcomes, patient‐reported outcomes, and surrogate endpoints, either alone or in combination. The TURK‐HF registry was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT06707220). Conclusion: The TURK‐HF registry offers comprehensive and distinctive insights into contemporary HF clinical characteristics, diagnostic methods, treatments, and outcomes. This registry has the potential to influence implementation strategies, clinical research, and public policies across Türkiye.

Objective: The main objective of this study is to determine the incidence and predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with AF treated with factor Xa inhibitors in a real‐world setting.Methods: The present study was a multicentre and observational study that included patients with AF who were treated with factor Xa inhibitors. The primary outcome was the composite of ischemic stroke, TIA, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all‐cause mortality.Results: A total of 1162 patients from 26 cardiology centers were included in this study, with a median age of 72 years. During the median 12‐month follow‐up period, the primary outcome occurred in 195 patients (16.8%). Treatment with rivaroxaban compared with apixaban and edoxaban showed a lower rate of ischemic stroke, TIA, and/or systemic embolism (2.2% vs. 4.7% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p = 0.014). The major bleeding rate was similar between all three factor Xa inhibitors. The all‐cause mortality rate in the rivaroxaban group was lower compared with the apixaban and edoxaban groups (9.8% vs. 15.1% vs. 12.4%, respectively, p = 0.042). Overall, the frequency of primary outcome was 13.8%, 19.6%, and 20.6% for patients treated with rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively (p = 0.019). Older age, male sex, low body weight, high bleeding risk, heart failure, hypertension, liver failure, and treatment with apixaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. were independently associated with the development of primary outcome.Conclusion: The follow‐up data from the ANATOLIA‐AF study provides detailed data about the incidence and independent predictors of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with AF treated with factor Xa inhibitor treatment.

Integrating heart failure (HF) guideline recommendations into clinical practice takes time and is often suboptimal in real-life settings. Physician-related factors may be significant barriers to the adoption of these guidelines. This survey aims to assess the current opinions of cardiologists practicing in Türkiye regarding the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The survey comprised 22 questions and was published on the SurveyMonkey platform. A total of 177 cardiologists (mean age: 39.5 years; 73.3% male) participated in the survey. Of these, 38.7% worked in a training and research hospital, and 10.2% were specialists in HF. The threshold EF value to define HFrEF was ≤ 40% for 80.1% of the cardiologists. While 52.6% of physicians considered angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) treatment the most effective medication for HF, 62.7% would initiate HF treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) instead of ARNi due to reimbursement and cost issues. More than half of the cardiologists (52.3%) stated that adding another class of HF medication is more important than up-titrating those already prescribed. Although 69.5% of the study participants indicated prescribing all four classes of HF medications during the initial hospitalization is feasible, most cardiologists preferred a sequential approach starting with ACEi/ARNi, followed by beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). This survey highlights significant discrepancies between guideline recommendations and the real-life clinical practice of cardiologists in Türkiye. These results suggest that there is a need for organized action by healthcare providers to improve the implementation of guideline recommendations.

The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to the current European Society of Cardiology dyslipidemia guidelines, the ratio of reaching target values according to risk groups, and the reasons for not reaching LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) goals in patients on already statin therapy in a cardiology outpatient population. The AIZANOI study is a multi-center, cross-sectional observational study including conducted in 9 cardiology centers between August 1, 2021, and November 1, 2021. A total of 1225 patients (mean age 62 ± 11 years, 366 female) who were already on statin therapy for at least 3 months were included. More than half (58.2%) of the patients were using high-intensity statin regimens. Only 26.2% of patients had target LDL-C level according to their risk score. Despite 58.4% of very high-risk patients and 44.4% of high-risk patients have been using a high-intensity statin regimen, only 24.5% of very-high-risk patients and only 34.9% of high-risk patients have reached guideline-recommended LDL-C levels. Most prevalent reason for not using target dose statin was physician preference (physician inertia) (40.3%). The AIZANOI study showed that we achieved a target LDL-C level in only 26.2% of patients using statin therapy. Although 58.4% of patients with a very high SCORE risk and 44.4% of patients with a high SCORE risk were using a target dose statin regimen, we were only able to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in 24.5% and 34.9% of them, respectively, in cardiology outpatients clinics. Physician inertia is one of the major factors in non-adherence to guidelines. These findings highlight that combination therapy is needed in most of the patients.

Aims: The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal. The SMYRNA study aims to identify the clinical factors for the non-use of GDMT and to determine the prognostic significance of GDMT in patients with HFrEF in a real-life setting. Methods and results: The SMYRNA study is a prospective, multicentre, and observational study that included outpatients with HFrEF. Patients were divided into three groups according to the status of GDMT at the time of enrolment: (i) patients receiving all classes of HF medications including renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs); (ii) patients receiving any two classes of HF medications (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers, or RAS inhibitors and MRAs, or beta-blockers and MRAs); and (iii) either patients receiving class of HF medications (only one therapy) or patients not receiving any class of HF medications. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. The study population consisted of 1062 patients with HFrEF, predominantly men (69.1%), with a median age of 68 (range: 20–96) years. RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs were prescribed in 76.0%, 89.4%, and 55.1% of the patients, respectively. The proportions of patients receiving target doses of guideline-directed medications were 24.4% for RAS inhibitors, 11.0% for beta-blockers, and 11.1% for MRAs. Overall, 491 patients (46.2%) were treated with triple therapy, 353 patients (33.2%) were treated with any two classes of HF medications, and 218 patients (20.6%) were receiving only one class of HF medication or not receiving any HF medication. Patient-related factors comprising older age, New York Heart Association functional class, rural living, presence of hypertension, and history of myocardial infarction were independently associated with the use or non-use of GDMT. During the median 24-month period, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 362 patients (34.1%), and 177 of 1062 (16.7%) patients died. Patients treated with two or three classes of HF medications had a decreased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with those patients receiving ≤1 class of HF medication [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49–0.85; P = 0.002, and HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47–0.79; P < 0.001, respectively]. Conclusions: The real-life SMYRNA study provided comprehensive data about the clinical factors associated with the non-use of GDMT and showed that suboptimal GDMT is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF.

Purpose Inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants is associated with an increased risk of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, cardiovascular hospitalization, and death in patients with atrial fibrillation. The main goal of the study was to determine the prevalence and associated factors of inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants in real-life settings. Methods This study was a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study that included 2004 patients with atrial fibrillation. The study population was recruited from 41 cardiology outpatient clinics between January and May 2021. The main criteria for inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant dosing were defined according to the recommendations of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Results The median age of the study population was 72 years and 58% were women. Nine-hundred and eighty-seven patients were prescribed rivaroxaban, 658 apixaban, 239 edoxaban, and 120 dabigatran. A total of 498 patients (24.9%) did not receive the appropriate dose of direct oral anticoagulants. In a logistic regression model, advanced age, presence of chronic kidney disease and permanent atrial fibrillation, prescription of reduced doses of direct oral anticoagulants or edoxaban treatment, concomitant use of amiodarone treatment, and non-use of statin treatment were significantly associated with potentially inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants. Conclusion The study demonstrated that the prevalence of inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant dosing according to the European Heart Rhythm Association recommendations was 24.9% in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated with the inappropriate prescription of direct oral anticoagulants.