Interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-operative atrial fibrillation is a common complication of cardiac surgery and has been associated with increased incidence of other complications including post-operative stroke, increased hospital length of stay and increased cost of hospitalisation. Prevention of atrial fibrillation is a reasonable clinical goal and, consequently, many randomised trials have evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature and prepared meta-analyses to better understand the role and effects of various prophylactic therapies against post-operative atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing post-cardiac surgery atrial fibrillation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from earliest achievable date to June 2003. We hand searched references from reports and earlier reviews. We searched abstract books and CD-ROMs from annual scientific meetings of American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology and European Heart Organization between 1997-2003. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions or non-pharmacological interventions with control treatment, placebo or usual care for the prevention of post-operative atrial fibrillation in post-coronary artery bypass grafting or combined CABG and valvular surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty eight studies were included with a total of 8565 participants. Interventions included were amiodarone, beta blockers, solatol and pacing. Results favoured treatment for post-operative atrial fibrillation. The data for stroke favoured treatment by a non-significant effect size of 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 1.28. Similarly, a positive indication for length of stay was derived but it too was not significant with a weighted mean difference of -0.66, 95% confidence interval -0.95 to -0.37. A positive result for cost of hospitalisation in favour of treatment was achieved, but the statistic is not significant due to low power and large standard deviations: a weighted mean difference of -2717, 95% confidence interval 7518 to 2084. Beta-blockers had the greatest magnitude of effect across 28 trials (4074 patients) with an odds ratio (random) of 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.49. Across all treatment, the odds ratio favoured treatment with a ratio (random) of 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.51. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Intervention is favoured across the three pharmacological interventions studied and the one non-pharmacological intervention, pacing. The length of stay data favoured treatment (-0.66, 95% confidence interval -0.95 to -0.37).
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".