Effect of Systemic Hypertension With Versus Without Left Ventricular Hypertrophy on the Progression of Atrial Fibrillation (from the Euro Heart Survey)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is a risk factor for both progression of atrial fibrillation (AF) and development of AF-related complications, that is major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). It is unknown whether left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) as a consequence of hypertension is also a risk factor for both these end points. We aimed to assess this in low-risk AF patients, also assessing gender-related differences. We included 799 patients from the Euro Heart Survey with nonvalvular AF and a baseline echocardiogram. Patients with and without hypertension were included. End points after 1 year were occurrence of AF progression, that is paroxysmal AF becoming persistent and/or permanent AF, and MACCE. Echocardiographic LVH was present in 33% of 379 hypertensive patients. AF progression after 1 year occurred in 10.2% of 373 patients with rhythm follow-up. In hypertensive patients with LVH, AF progression occurred more frequently as compared with hypertensive patients without LVH (23.3% vs 8.8%, p = 0.011). In hypertensive AF patients, LVH was the most important multivariably adjusted determinant of AF progression on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio 4.84, 95% confidence interval 1.70 to 13.78, p = 0.003). This effect was only seen in male patients (27.5% vs 5.8%, p = 0.002), while in female hypertensive patients, no differences were found in AF progression rates regarding the presence or absence of LVH (15.2% vs 15.0%, p = 0.999). No differences were seen in MACCE for hypertensive patients with and without LVH. In conclusion, in men with hypertension, LVH is associated with AF progression. This association seems to be absent in hypertensive women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".