MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18447: Peri-operative Atrial Fibrillation (POAF) Complicating Non-cardiothoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2908381793 on OpenAlexaff
J Wenner, Karan Bami, Himabindu Samardhi, Pablo B. Nery, David H. Birnie, Girish M. Nair, Calum J. Redpath

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiothoracic surgeryCardiac surgeryPerioperativeProspective cohort studyRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaCardiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: More than 37 million non cardiothoracic operations are performed in the USA per annum. Single studies have reported that peri-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) complicates non-cardiac surgery in ≤12% of patients. It is not clear if POAF is associated with adverse outcomes. Purpose: We conducted a systematic review to determine the frequency and implications of POAF. Methods: We conducted a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, HTA, Cochrane, and Pubmed databases. We defined POAF as a single episode of AF confirmed by ECG within 30 days of non cardiothoracic surgery. Inclusion criteria were published manuscripts and abstracts containing patient level information. We excluded studies which were not published in English, described cardiothoracic surgery, were missing patient-level AF data or included patients aged <18 years. Results: Our search produced 4445 publications, from which 716 abstracts and 534 manuscripts were identified for review. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 225 manuscripts were analysed. Combining all studies, POAF occurred in 18789/650120 patients (2.9%, n=172, median [IQR] 2.2% [0.9-5.8]). Among 37 prospective studies, POAF occurred in 517/10990 patients (4.7%, n=37, 3.23% [1.0-8.8]). AF was prospectively identified pre-op in 875/26596 (3.3%, n=18, 9.0% [5.5-13.1]) and post-op in 472/14719 (3.2%, n=18, 8.8% [5.5-13.0]). In 135 retrospective studies, POAF occurred in 18272/639130 patients (2.9% n=135, 2.13 [0.8-4.4]). In retrospective analyses, AF was pre-existent in 49756/2440489, (2.0%, n=44, 6.7% [4.3-13.1]) and de novo in 12043/1641875, (0.7%, n=23, 6.0% [1.6-12.3]). Stratifying by surgery type, POAF was most common in vascular (104/1380, 7.5%), followed by orthopaedic (128/2384, 5.4%), and neurosurgical (197/4390, 4.5%) patients. Patient outcomes were not systematically reported: at 1 year, mortality occurred in 927/4136 (22.4%) POAF patients, compared to 8498/63746 (13.3%) non-POAF patients (n=7). Conclusions: POAF occurred in 2.9% of 650120 patients and was associated with a 68% increase in mortality. Prospective research is required to determine whether any specific intervention(s) in POAF patients will improve outcomes.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→