MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3110434329 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.0497

Association of biomarkers of inflammation with hospitalization for heart failure and death in patients with atrial fibrillation

2020· article· en· W3110434329 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander P. Benz, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Philipp Krisai, Steffen Blum, Pascal Meyre, Manuel R. Blum, Nicolas Rodondi, Marcello Di Valentino, Richard Kobza, Maria Luisa De Perna, Leo H. Bonati, Jürg H. Beer, M Kuehne, Stefan Osswald, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeHeart failureAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineBiomarkerCardiologyProspective cohort studyCohortPercentileProportional hazards modelSystemic inflammationIncidence (geometry)Inflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hospitalization for heart failure and death are among the most common adverse clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Purpose We hypothesised that inflammation, quantified by plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6), is independently associated with hospitalization for heart failure and death in a large, contemporary cohort of AF patients. Methods Patients with established AF and 65 years of age or older were enrolled in two large, prospective, multicentre cohort studies in Switzerland. Plasma levels of high-sensitivity (hs) CRP and IL-6 were measured from frozen EDTA plasma samples obtained at baseline. Using these two biomarkers, we calculated an inflammation score ranging from 0 to 4 (1 point for each biomarker between the 50th and 75th percentile, 2 points for each biomarker above the 75th percentile). We constructed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to quantify the associations of hs-CRP, IL-6 and the inflammation score with time to first hospitalization for heart failure and time to all-cause mortality, respectively. Results A total of 3,784 patients with AF (median age 72 years, 28% women, 24% with a prior history of heart failure and 84% anticoagulation use at baseline) were followed for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 4.0 (2.9–5.1) years. The median (IQR) plasma levels of hs-CRP and IL-6 at baseline were 1.64 (0.81–3.69) mg/L and 3.42 (2.14–5.60) pg/mL, respectively. The incidence rates of hospitalization for heart failure and death were 3.04 and 2.80 per 100 person-years, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, both biomarkers were significantly associated with the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (per increase in 1 standard deviation [SD], adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.34 for log-transformed hs-CRP, and aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.35–1.62 for log-transformed IL-6) and death (per increase in 1 SD, aHR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27–1.54 for log-transformed hs-CRP, and aHR 1.67, 95% CI 1.53–1.81 for log-transformed IL-6). Incidence rates of hospitalization for heart failure increased from 1.34 to 7.31 per 100 person-years across categories of the inflammation score (Figure 1). A strong relationship persisted after multivariable adjustment. Similar findings were observed for all-cause mortality. Conclusions Inflammation is a strong predictor of hospitalization for heart failure and death in patients with AF. Targeting inflammation may be a promising treatment strategy to improve outcomes in these patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Swiss National Science Foundation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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