Left atrial dimension and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prognostic value of left atrial (LA) dimensions may differ between patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies that investigated the association between LA echocardiographic parameters measured by transthoracic echocardiography and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with or without AF. Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident stroke or thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes were heart failure, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies of patients with AF (14 939 patients) and 68 studies of patients without AF (50 720 patients) in this systematic review. Increasing LA diameter was significantly associated with stroke and thromboembolic events in patients without AF (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.87; p=0.03), but not in patients with AF (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07; p=0.27; p for difference=0.05). Increasing LA diameter index was significantly associated with MACE in patients with AF (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; p<0.001) and in patients without AF (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.90 to 4.66; p<0.001), with stronger effects in non-AF populations (p for difference <0.001). Greater LA volume index was significantly associated with the risk of MACE in patients with AF (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02; p=0.03) and in non-AF populations (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10; p<0.001), the association being stronger in individuals without AF (p for difference <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Larger LA parameters were associated with various adverse cardiovascular events. Many of these associations were stronger in individuals without AF, highlighting the potential importance of LA myopathy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".