P1380Gender differences in the progression of atrial fibrillation in low-risk paroxysmal AF patients with hypertension: the role of left ventricular hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with several comorbidities, the most prevalent being hypertension. Hypertension is a risk factor for both the development and progression of AF, as well as the development of AF-related complications, e.g. major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Furthermore, hypertension may lead to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). It is unknown whether this cardiac adaptation process is a biomarker of AF progression or MACCE. Purpose: We aimed to assess differences in progression of AF and the occurrence of MACCE in low-risk AF patients with and without hypertension and echocardiographic LVH. We furthermore aimed to assess gender differences in this regard. Methods: We included 799 patients from the Euro Heart Survey with non-valvular AF and a baseline echocardiogram. Patients with a maximum CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 were included, based on gender and hypertension. Patients with other stroke risk factors were excluded. The occurrence of AF progression, i.e. paroxysmal AF becoming persistent or permanent AF, and MACCE after 1 year were assessed for the different groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of the endpoints. Results: LVH was present in 51 (12%) of 420 non-hypertensive AF patients and in 124 (33%) of 379 hypertensive patients. AF progression was significantly more prevalent in hypertensive patients with LVH as compared to hypertensive patients without LVH (23.3% vs. 8.8%, p=0.011). In hypertensive AF patients, LVH was the most important independent predictor of AF progression (Odds Ratio 4.84, 95% Confidence Interval 1.70-13.78, p=0.003). This effect could only be ascertained in male patients (27.5% vs. 5.8%, p=0.002). In female hypertensive patients, no differences were found in AF progression rates with regard to the presence or absence of LVH (15.2% vs. 15.0%, p=0.999). Furthermore, no differences were seen in MACCE for patients with and without LVH. Conclusion: In male low-risk atrial fibrillation patients with hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy is the only independent predictor of AF progression. This effect is absent in female AF patients with hypertension. Abstract P1380 Figure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".