Effect of Perindopril on Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Burden: Results of the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation (CTAF)-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a risk factor for the development and exacerbation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are a standard-of-care treatment option for patients with hypertension; however, there is conflicting evidence about their effects on AF recurrence. Therefore, our objective was to assess the efficacy of perindopril, compared with placebo, to reduce AF recurrence in patients with hypertension and AF. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with hypertension and symptomatic AF were randomly assigned (1:1) to perindopril or placebo based on a stratification factor of antiarrhythmic drug use. Patients with terminated AF were followed up from 30 days after randomization to 7 to 13 months. The primary endpoint was AF recurrence. Secondary endpoints included AF hospitalization, cardioversion, and blood pressure control. Recurrent events, AF burden, and safety endpoints were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients were randomly assigned, and 301 patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis (155 vs 146 patients in the perindopril and placebo groups, respectively). The mean follow-up was 336 ± 70 days, and 91.1% of patients were compliant to the treatment medication throughout the study. After adjustment for baseline antiarrhythmic drugs, there was no statistically significant difference in the hazards of AF recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.61), with similar blood pressure. The incidence of secondary endpoints and adverse events also did not differ between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Perindopril does not reduce recurrence or the number of AF episodes in patients with hypertension and AF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".