P1258Left atrial dimension and risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The prognostic value of left atrial (LA) dimensions measured by transthoracic echocardiogram among patients with versus without atrial fibrillation (AF) is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the association of LA echocardiographic parameters with the risk of cardiovascular events in AF patients compared to non-AF patients. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. Records were retained if they studied the association between LA echocardiographic parameters and cardiovascular outcomes in AF patients, and in populations with no or less than 10% of AF patients. Left atrial dimensions had to be measured by transthoracic echocardiography, and parameters of interest were the following: LA diameter (LAD), LA diameter indexed to body surface (LADI), LA volume (LAV) and LA volume indexed to body surface (LAVI). Data were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers and pooled using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident stroke and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes were heart failure, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results Twenty-three studies of AF patients (14'939 patients) and 69 studies of non-AF patients (52'654 patients) were included. Summary of the meta-analyses for the associations of LA parameters with cardiovascular outcomes is presented in the Figure. Increasing LAD was significantly associated with the risk of stroke and thromboembolic events in non-AF patients (P=0.03), but not among AF patients (P=0.27), and the association did not differ between population (P for difference=0.05) (Figure, A). Greater LADI was associated with risk of stroke and thromboembolic events in AF patients (P<0.001) and in non-AF patients (P=0.04), but the association did not differ between populations (P for difference=0.49). For MACE, increasing LADI was significantly associated with the outcome in AF patients (P<0.001) and in non-AF patients (P<0.001), but the association was stronger in non-AF populations (P for difference<0.001). Increasing LAVI was associated with high risk of MACE in AF patients (P=0.03) and in non-AF populations (P<0.001). Again, the correlation was stronger among non-AF patients (P for difference<0.001). Other associations did not differ between populations, and meta-analysis of LAV was not conducted by the limited number of studies. Summary of meta-analysis Conclusions Left atrial echocardiographic parameters are powerful predictors of adverse cardiovascular events, mainly among individuals without AF.
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) | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".