MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981911773 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.1131

P4755Sex differences in admission rates, use of anticoagulation, and outcomes for emergency department presentations of atrial fibrillation

2019· article· en· W2981911773 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Daniele, Douglas C. Dover, Sunjidatul Islam, N. Hawkins, Padma Kaul, Roopinder K. Sandhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Heart failureEmergency medicineInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Studies in non-Emergency Department (ED) settings have shown women with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) differ in presentation, treatment, and outcomes compared to men. Despite AF being a common reason for ED visit, little is known regarding sex differences in patients presenting to ED. Purpose We sought to determine whether sex differences exist in rates of admission among NVAF patients presenting to the ED and if oral anticoagulant (OAC) use and outcomes differ by ED discharge status. Methods Patients≥18 years old, presenting to the ED with incident NVAF in two western Canadian provinces (Alberta and British Columbia) from April 2012 to March 2015 were included. ED records were linked to hospital records to identify patients admitted to hospital versus discharged from the ED. Outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and 1-year stroke, heart failure (HF) and mortality. Pharmaceutical claims were queried for OAC use within 90 days following NVAF ED event. Results Of 16,991 ED NVAF patients, 7,770 (46%) were women and 9,221 (54%) were men (p<0.001). Compared to men, women were older (73.9 vs 65.6 years, p<0.001) and presented with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (4.0 vs 2.0, p<0.001). Overall, 41% of women and 37% of men were admitted to hospital (p<0.001). OAC rate was 50% among admitted and 37% among discharged (p<0.001). OAC rates were 53% in women and 48% in men among admitted (p<0.001), and 39% in women and 35% in men among discharged (p<0.001). OAC rates were higher in patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥1 who were admitted (53% in women (n=2,781) and 52% in men (n=2,683), p=0.63) than in those who were discharged (39% in women (n=4,435) and 45% in men (n=3,866), p<0.01). Women had higher rates of mortality at 30-days and 1-year, and stroke at 1-year compared to men, irrespective of ED discharge status (all p<0.02). Women admitted had higher HF rates at 1-year compared to men (p=0.002). (Table) Outcomes by Sex and ED Discharge Status Outcome Discharged Admitted Women (N=4,560) Men (N=5,780) p-value Women (N=3,210) Men (N=3,441) p-value 30 Day Mortality, n (%) 63 (1.4) 50 (0.9) 0.01 261 (8.1) 228 (6.6) 0.019 1 Year Mortality, n (%) 270 (5.9) 248 (4.7) <0.001 717 (22.3) 604 (17.6) <0.001 Stroke*, rate (SE) 1.7 (0.19) 0.9 (0.13) <0.001 4.0 (0.37) 2.6 (0.28) 0.001 Heart Failure*, rate (SE) 3.6 (0.28) 3.1 (0.23) 0.16 12.9 (0.62) 10.4 (0.54) 0.002 *Censored on death. Conclusions In this population-based study of patients presenting to ED with NVAF, we found women were more likely to be admitted to hospital than men. Women had a worse prognosis than men, irrespective of ED discharge status. Use of OAC was suboptimal, regardless of patient sex. Acknowledgement/Funding Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, UBC Cardiology, Servier Alberta Innovation Health Fund

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207