Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists/European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists Practice Advisory for the Management of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (poAF) is the most common adverse event after cardiac surgery and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Despite progressive improvements in overall cardiac surgical operative mortality and postoperative morbidity, the incidence of poAF has remained unchanged at 30%-50%. A number of evidence-based recommendations regarding the perioperative management of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been released from leading cardiovascular societies in recent years; however, it is unknown how closely these guidelines are being followed by medical practitioners. In addition, many of these society recommendations are based on patient stratification into "normal" and "elevated" risk groups for AF, but criteria for that stratification have not been clearly defined. In an effort to improve the perioperative management of AF, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Clinical Practice Improvement Committee developed a multidisciplinary Atrial Fibrillation Working Group that created a summary of current best practice based on a distillation of recent guidelines from professional societies involved in the care of cardiac surgical patients. An evidence-based set of survey questions was then generated to describe the current practice of perioperative AF management. Through collaboration with the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists (EACTA), that survey was distributed to the combined memberships of both the SCA and EACTA, yielding 641 responses and resulting in the most comprehensive understanding to date of perioperative AF management in North America, Europe, and beyond. The survey data demonstrated the broad range of therapies utilized for the prevention and treatment of poAF, as well as a spectrum of adherence to published guidelines. With the goal of improving adherence, a graphical advisory tool was created with an easily accessible format that could be utilized for bedside management. Finally, given that no evidence-based threshold currently exists to differentiate patients at normal risk to develop poAF from those at elevated risk, the SCA/EACTA AF working group created a list of poAF risk factors using expert opinion and based on published risk score models for poAF. This approach allows stratification of patients into risk groups and facilitates adherence to the evidence-based recommendations summarized in the graphical advisory tool. It is our hope that these new additions to the clinical toolkit for the management of perioperative AF will improve the evidence-based care and outcomes of cardiac surgical patients worldwide.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».