MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3107278019 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.0518

Perioperative atrial fibrillation and risk of stroke after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3107278019 on OpenAlexaffabout
M.K Wang, P Chen, Pascal Meyre, Muhammad Zain Ali, Rachel Heo, William F. McIntyre, Jeff S. Healey, Richard Whitlock, André Lamy, P.J. Devereaux, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)PerioperativeCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisCardiac surgeryInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Relative riskCardiologySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery has been associated with an increased risk of stroke. However, many previous studies have not systematically excluded patients with pre-existing AF. As such, the association between new-onset POAF and stroke risk has not been well established. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the short and long-term risks of stroke in patients experiencing new-onset POAF after cardiac surgery. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for studies comparing the risk of stroke in patients with versus without new-onset POAF after cardiac surgery. Studies were included in our review if they enrolled ≥100 patients and defined POAF as new-onset AF in patients with no history of preoperative AF. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate summary risk ratios. Short-term stroke risk was calculated using events occurring either in-hospital or ≤30 days after surgery, and long-term risk was calculated using events occurring >30 days after surgery. Results After reviewing 11,791 citations, 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 364,822 patients, of which 76,388 (20.9%) developed new-onset POAF. The incidence of stroke was higher among patients with POAF versus no POAF (n=44 studies; incidence 2.76% vs. 1.53%; relative risk (RR) 1.91, 95% CI 1.65–2.23; I2 = 78%). A sensitivity analysis of high-quality studies alone yielded similar results (n=9 studies; RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.31–2.30; I2 = 88%). Patients with POAF had a higher incidence of stroke both in the short-term (n=35 studies; 2.71% vs. 1.36%; RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.81–2.51; I2 = 69%) and long-term (n=20 studies; 1.6 vs. 1.0 per 100 patient-years; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.24–1.57; I2 = 27%). The risk of stroke was increased in POAF patients across all types of cardiac surgery performed, including isolated CABG (n=19 studies; RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.60–2.32; I2 = 62%), isolated transcatheter aortic valve implantation (n=7 studies; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.32–2.63; I2 = 0%), and studies including multiple procedure types (n=16 studies; RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.44–2.51; I2 = 89%). Conclusion New-onset POAF after cardiac surgery is associated with an increased risk of stroke, both in the short and long term. The absolute risk difference is small, and randomized trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment interventions in this patient population. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→