MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120239387 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa955

Alcohol consumption, atrial fibrillation, and cardiovascular disease: finding the right balance

2020· letter· en· W3120239387 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge Wong, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineBalance (ability)Alcohol consumptionDiseaseAlcoholPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial refers to ‘Alcohol consumption, cardiac biomarkers and risk of atrial fibrillation and adverse outcomes’, by D. Csengeri et al.†, on page 1170. Alcohol consumption and risk of cardiovascular associations per one standard drink. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular complications, and has been described as one of the cardiovascular epidemics of the 21st century.1 The pathogenesis of AF is complex, but several AF risk factors have been previously described, explaining ∼50% of the population attributable risk.1–4 Enhancing our understanding of the risk factors predisposing to AF is crucial, as it may lead to the development of new preventative strategies. Indeed, thus far, only oral anticoagulation has been unequivocally shown to improve hard outcomes, once a patient has developed AF.5 An important modifiable risk factor predisposing to AF is excessive alcohol consumption.6,7 Both acute and increased habitual drinking have been linked to the development of AF. Acute alcohol consumption has a direct effect on the heart leading to atrial tachyarrhythmias as is manifest in the Holiday Heart Syndrome.8,9 Chronic alcohol consumption is also associated with an increased risk of AF.6,7 In the Women’s Health Study, women consuming >2 alcoholic drinks per day had a 60% higher risk of incident AF after multivariable adjustment, whereas lower amounts did not increase risk, suggesting a threshold effect.6 More recently, a meta-analysis of seven prospective studies involving 12 554 AF cases reported a linear effect between alcohol and incident AF with a risk increase of 8% per alcoholic drink consumed.7 However, while there is robust data to support that elevated alcohol consumption is associated with new-onset AF, uncertainty surrounded the evidence whether smaller quantities of alcohol are significantly associated with AF risk. In this issue of the Journal, Csengeri et al.10 addressed the relationship between alcohol intake and incident AF in a very large dataset. Csengeri et al.10 combined five prospective community-based cohorts totalling 107 845 individuals free of AF at baseline, of whom 5854 developed new-onset AF over a median follow-up of 13.9 years. Alcohol consumption was determined at baseline from patient self-report, while incident AF was determined from hospitalization data via ICD codes or comorbidities listed on death certificates. Median age was 47.8 years, 48.3% were men and median alcohol consumption was 3 g/day. In Cox regression models stratified by sex and cohort, consumption of 1 alcoholic beverage (defined as 12 g of alcohol) per day, was associated with a 16% increased risk of incident AF [hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.22, P < 0.001]. Importantly, there was a significant relationship between alcohol and increased AF risk at very low levels of alcohol intake. Even an average consumption of 3 g/day was robustly associated with AF risk (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.05). This relationship was not significantly attenuated by adjustment for other AF risk factors. Although not reported in the manuscript, it is important to note that the absolute risk of AF was likely low in participants consuming low-to-moderate amounts of alcohol. The authors found a J-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and incident heart failure, with the lowest risk observed at levels of up to 20 g of alcohol per day. When examining the intermediary role of incident heart failure in the development of AF from alcohol intake, the interaction between alcohol- and time-dependent heart failure (HF) was not significant. Finally, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity troponin-I (hsTnI) were weakly correlated with alcohol consumption and adjustment for these biomarkers did not attenuate the relationship between alcohol and AF. The current study10 has several strengths. Harmonization of the outcome and covariates across five cohorts allowed the authors to perform standardized analyses with a very large sample size and great power to detect significant relationships between alcohol intake and AF, including the lower spectrum of alcohol consumption where the risk of incident AF is expected to be small. Accordingly, this study provides solid evidence that even very low levels of alcohol (i.e. <1 drink per day) remain significantly associated with an increased risk of new-onset AF. The study of Csengeri et al.10 has limitations. First, AF episodes were not adjudicated and relied on International Classification of Diseases (ICD codes) from hospitalization data, which may have led to misclassification bias. Furthermore, AF cases that did not lead to hospital presentation or were mentioned on death certificates would not have been detected. Second, this study was not able to examine the relationship between binge drinking and incident AF. Third, the study did not report the absolute risks of AF associated with low levels of alcohol consumption. This important issue has to be taken into account when also considering the potentially beneficial associations of modest alcohol intake with other cardiovascular outcomes.11–14 Finally, the study was not designed to shed further light as to the mechanisms linking habitual alcohol consumption and the development of AF. Although the authors examined the potential role of NT-proBNP and hsTnI in this relationship, biomarker data were only available for a minority of patients and only at baseline. The effects of alcohol on atrial electrophysiology likely depend on multiple factors including changes in atrial repolarization, vagal tone, and direct myocardial injury and fibrosis.9 More studies examining how alcohol affects atrial electrophysiology via these potential pathways are needed. In conclusion, the current article10 makes an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between alcohol intake and incident AF, in particular at the lower spectrum of alcohol consumption. A significant relationship between alcohol and AF was identified, and even small quantities of alcohol were associated with an increased, albeit small, risk of incident AF. Together with a recent randomized trial showing that a reduction in alcohol intake led to a reduction in AF recurrence,15 these data suggest that lowering alcohol consumption may be important for both prevention and management of AF. Importantly, any reduction in low-to-moderate alcohol consumption to potentially prevent AF needs to be balanced with the potentially beneficial association low amounts alcohol may have with respect to other cardiovascular outcomes (Graphical abstract).11–14 The net clinical benefit of consuming low amounts of alcohol requires further study, ideally in adequately powered randomized trials. Until then, each individual has to make its own best educated decision as to whether consuming up to 1 alcoholic drink per day is worthwhile and safe. Conflict of interest: D.C. received speakers fees from Servier Canada, outside of the current work. He holds a McMaster University Department of Medicine Mid-Career Research Award. The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0220.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207