MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107779869 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317741

Comorbidity burden in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure

2020· article· en· W3107779869 on OpenAlexaff
Shubrandu Sanjoy, Yun‐Hee Choi, David R. Holmes, Howard Herrman, Juan Terre, M. Chadi Alraies, Tomo Ando, Nikolaos Tzemos, Mamas A. Mamas, Rodrigo Bagur

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityInternal medicineStroke (engine)Atrial fibrillationOdds ratioLogistic regressionCohortCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To estimate the risk of in-hospital complications after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in relationship with comorbidity burden. Methods Cohort-based observational study using the US National Inpatient Sample database, 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2017. The main outcome of interest was the occurrence of in-hospital major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, cardiac complications and postprocedural stroke. Comorbidity burden and thromboembolic risk were assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Elixhauser Comorbidity Score (ECS) and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score. MAE were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The associations of comorbidity with in-hospital MAE were evaluated using logistic regression models. Results A total of 3294 hospitalisations were identified, among these, the mean age was 75.7±8.2 years, 60% were male and 86% whites. The mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4.3±1.5 and 29.5% of the patients had previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. The mean CCI and ECS were 2.2±1.9 and 9.7±5.8, respectively. The overall composite rate of in-hospital MAE after LAAC was 4.6%. Females and non-whites had about 1.5 higher odds of in-hospital AEs as well participants with higher CCI (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.19, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.24, p<0.001), ECS (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.08, p<0.001) and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score (aOR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.15, p=0.01) were significantly associated with in-hospital MAE. Conclusion In this large cohort of LAAC patients, the majority of them had significant comorbidity burden. In-hospital MAE occurred in 4.6% and female patients, non-whites and those with higher burden of comorbidities were at higher risk of in-hospital MAE after LAAC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207