MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 309: Is Right Bundle Branch Block Associated with Poor Outcomes in the Setting of an Acute Coronary Syndrome? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2014· review· en· W2273579624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmad Hazem, Sunita Sharma, Amit Sharma, Cameron Leitch, Roopalakshmi Sharadanant, Matthew Uriell, Kari Neutzling, Zhen Wang, Patricia Brrionuevo Moreno, Annie LeBlanc, Atsushi Sorita, Leonid Vilesnki, Larry J. Prokop, Premraj Makkuni, Henry H. Ting, M. Hassan Murad

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineRight bundle branch blockMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioMeta-analysisCardiologyConfidence intervalRelative riskMortality rateElectrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have right bundle branch block (RBBB), and RBBB has been associated with a higher risk of mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with AMI. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Data Sources: We have systematically searched Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting studies that described all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB and suspected ACS. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcomes. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled risk ratio with hazard ratio in studies reporting those outcomes. When reported, odds ratio was converted into risk ratio using reported event rate in each study’s unexposed -read: non RBBB- group. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: Eighteen studies were found that reported eligible data. All were observational studies, involving over 89,000 patients. In short-term follow up (up to 30 days), RBBB on presentation was associated with higher all-cause mortality rate, compared to patients without RBBB (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.76-2.82). There was a trend for higher mortality at long-term follow up (range: 6 months-16 years) that did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.25). Figure-1 demonstrates the forest plot. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and majority of included studied were deemed moderate to high quality. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB is associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AMI at 30 days follow up. Patients with AMI and RBBB represent a high risk group for adverse outcomes. A sentence on the differential findings for new vs. old RBBB and association with outcomes could follow here.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.029
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207