MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078856783 · doi:10.1001/jama.291.14.1720

A Multicenter Risk Index for Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery

2004· article· en· W2078856783 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joseph P. Mathew

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalKarl-Franzens-Universität GrazUniversity of TorontoFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyOdds ratioCardiac surgeryCohort studyProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Atrial fibrillation is a common, but potentially preventable, complication following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the nature and consequences of atrial fibrillation after CABG surgery and to develop a comprehensive risk index that can better identify patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational study of 4657 patients undergoing CABG surgery between November 1996 and June 2000 at 70 centers located within 17 countries, selected using a systematic sampling technique. From a derivation cohort of 3093 patients, associations between predictor variables and postoperative atrial fibrillation were identified to develop a risk model, which was assessed in a validation cohort of 1564 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: New-onset atrial fibrillation after CABG surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1503 patients (32.3%) developed atrial fibrillation after CABG surgery. Postoperative atrial fibrillation was associated with subsequent greater resource use as well as with cognitive changes, renal dysfunction, and infection. Among patients in the derivation cohort, risk factors associated with atrial fibrillation were advanced age (odds ratio [OR] for 10-year increase, 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59-1.93); history of atrial fibrillation (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.57-2.85) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87); valve surgery (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.32); and postoperative withdrawal of a beta-blocker (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.52-2.40) or an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (OR 1.69; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08). Conversely, reduced risk was associated with postoperative administration of beta-blockers (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46), ACE inhibitors (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79), potassium supplementation (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.68), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40-0.60). The resulting multivariable risk index had adequate discriminative power with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.77 in the validation sample. Forty-three percent (640/1503) of patients who had atrial fibrillation after CABG surgery experienced more than 1 episode of atrial fibrillation. Predictors of recurrent atrial fibrillation included older age, history of congestive heart failure, left ventricular hypertrophy, aortic atherosclerosis, bicaval venous cannulation, withdrawal of ACE inhibitor or beta-blocker therapy, and use of amiodarone or digoxin (area under the ROC curve of 0.66). Patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation had longer hospital stays and experienced greater infectious, renal, and neurological complications than those with a single episode. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and validated models predicting the occurrence of atrial fibrillation after CABG surgery based on an analysis of a large multicenter international cohort. Our findings suggest that treatment with beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may offer protection. Atrial fibrillation after CABG surgery is associated with important complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,232
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207