Effects of Pharmacologic Therapy on Health-Related Quality of Life in Elderly patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A systematic Review of Randomized and Nonrandomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review assessed the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) and pharmacotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in elderly patients. Highly prevalent in the elderly, AF is associated with morbidity and symptoms affecting HRQOL. A PubMed and EMBASE search (1999-2010) was conducted using the terms atrial fibrillation, elderly, quality of life, Medicare, and Medicaid. In all, 504 articles were identified and 15 were selected (studies examining pharmacotherapy [rate or rhythm control] and HRQOL in AF patients with a mean age ≥ 65 years). Information, including study design, cohort size, and HRQOL instruments utilized, was extracted. Five observational studies, 5 randomized trials comparing rate and rhythm control, 3 randomized trials investigating pharmacologic agents, and 2 trials examining HRQOL, depression, and anxiety were identified. Elderly AF patients had reduced HRQOL versus patients in normal sinus rhythm, particularly in domains related to physical functioning. HRQOL may be particularly affected in older AF patients. Although data do not indicate whether a pharmacologic intervention or single treatment strategy-namely rate versus rhythm control-is better at improving HRQOL, either of these strategies and many pharmacologic interventions may improve HRQOL in elderly AF patients. Based on reviewed data, an algorithm is suggested to optimize HRQOL among elderly patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".