Colchicine for Prevention of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in patients undergoing lung resection surgery: a pilot randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We carried out a pilot randomized controlled study to determine the feasibility of a large trial evaluating the impact of colchicine versus placebo on postoperative atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (POAF) among patients undergoing lung resection surgery. METHODS: Patients ≥55 years of age undergoing lung resection surgery were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.6 mg or placebo starting a few hours before surgery. Postoperatively, patients received colchicine 0.6 mg or placebo twice daily for an additional 9 days. Our feasibility outcomes included the period of time required to recruit 100 patients, the completeness of follow-up and compliance with the study drug. The primary efficacy outcome was POAF within 30 days of randomization. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized (49 to colchicine and 51 to placebo) over a period of 12 months at 2 centres in Canada. All patients completed the 30-day follow-up. The mean staff time required to recruit and to follow-up each patient was 165 min. In all, 71% of patients completed the study drug course without interruption. Patient refusal to continuing taking the study drug was the main reason for permanent drug discontinuation. New POAF occurred in 5 (10.2%) patients in the colchicine group and 7 (13.7%) patients in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.20-2.34). CONCLUSIONS: These results show the feasibility of a trial evaluating Colchicine for the prevention of perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in patients undergoing lung resection surgery. This pilot study will serve as the foundation for the large multicentre COP-AF trial.
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 | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".