Management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency room and in the cardiology ward: the BLITZ AF study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the number of admissions to the emergency room (ER) of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (af) and their subsequent management. To evaluate the clinical profile and the use of antithrombotics and antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with AF admitted to cardiology wards. METHODS AND RESULTS: BLITZ-AF is a multicentre, observational study conducted in 154 centres on patients with AF/af. In each centre, data were collected, retrospectively for 4 weeks in ER and prospectively for 12 weeks in cardiology wards. In ER, there were 6275 admissions. Atrial fibrillation was the main diagnosis in 52.9% of the cases, af in 5.9%. Atrial fibrillation represented 1.0% of all ER admissions and 1.7% of all hospital admissions. A cardioversion has been performed in nearly 25% of the cases. Out of 4126 patients, 52.2% were admitted in cardiology ward; mean age was 74 ± 11 years, 41% were females. Patients with non-valvular AF were 3848 (93.3%); CHA2DS2-VASc score was ≥2 in 87.4%. Cardioversion was attempted in 38.8% of the patients. In-hospital mortality was 1.2%. At discharge, 42.6% of the patients were treated with vitamin K antagonists, 39.5% with direct oral anticoagulants, 13.6% with other antithrombotic drugs, and 4.2% did not take any antithrombotic agent. Rate control strategy was pursued in 47.2%, rhythm control in 44.0%, 45.6% were discharged in sinus rhythm. CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation still represents a significant burden on health care system. Oral anticoagulant use increased over time even if compliance with guidelines, with respect to prevention of the risk of stroke, remains suboptimal.
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 | 0.001 | 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".