Effects of long-term continuous screening for atrial fibrillation on heart failure events - results from the randomized LOOP Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Previous research established a solid link between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). However, while two landmark trials have assessed AF screening for stroke prevention, the potential impact of AF screening on HF remains unclear. Purpose This secondary analysis of the LOOP Study aimed to investigate the effects of AF screening on HF events. Methods The LOOP Study was a randomized clinical trial evaluating long-term continuous AF screening with implantable loop recorder (ILR) in individuals aged 70-90 years and with ≥1 of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, HF, and/or prior stroke. At inclusion, study participants were randomized 1:3 to either ILR screening or usual care. Anticoagulation was recommended upon AF detection, whereas other treatment was left to the discretion of the treating physician. In this secondary analysis, a cause-specific Cox regression model was applied to explore the effects of AF screening vs usual care on 1) time-to-first HF event and 2) total HF events, with the latter performed using the Andersen-and-Gill extension. HF event was defined as newly diagnosed HF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% or any HF hospitalization in participants with prior diagnosis of HF with reduced ejection fraction. Results In total, 6004 participants were enrolled in the LOOP Study: 1501 in the ILR group vs 4503 in the Control group. The study population had a mean age of 75 years and slightly more males than females (53% vs 47%), whereas 266 (4.4%) were previously diagnosed with HF at baseline. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years, a total of 208 HF events were reported in 175 (2.9%) participants: 37 events among 34 (2.3%) participants in the ILR group vs 171 events among 141 (3.1%) participants in the Control group. For time-to-first HF event, the annualized event rate was 0.44%/year [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.62] vs 0.61%/year [95% CI: 0.51-0.72] for ILR vs Control, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.72 [95% CI: 0.50-1.05]. When assessing total HF events, a significantly lower event rate was observed in the ILR group (0.47%/year [95% CI: 0.33-0.65]) compared with the Control group (0.73%/year [95% CI: 0.62-0.84]), resulting in a HR of 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.97]. Conclusions Among elderly individuals with additional stroke risk factors, long-term continuous AF screening led to a significantly reduced risk of total HF events, compared with usual care. This should be considered as hypothesis-generating and warrants further investigation.Cumulative incidence of HF event
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».