Atrial fibrillation in patients with high-risk acute myocardial infarction – the PARADISE-MI trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) is common in both patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and those with heart failure (HF). However, its impact on the risk of adverse outcomes in MI complicated by either reduced LVEF and/or transient pulmonary congestion is less known. Purpose To assess the relationship between AFF and outcomes and whether AFF modified the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACEi trial to determine superiority in reducing HF events after MI) trial. Methods 5656 patients enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial were divided into 3 groups: no known AFF, history of AFF without AFF at enrolment, and AFF occurring with the index MI event. We assessed outcomes and the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in all groups. The primary outcome of the PARADISE-MI trial was death from cardiovascular (CV) causes or incident HF. The outcome analyses were adjusted for the number of risk augmenting factors, age, pulmonary congestion, percutaneous coronary intervention, LVEF and hypertension. Results 259 patients (4.6%) had only a history of AFF, 525 patients (9.3%) had AFF associated with index MI. Patients with a history of AFF and AFF with index MI were older, with a higher rate of pulmonary congestion and hypertension, lower eGFR values but lower rates of diabetes, compared with those without AFF (Table 1). In unadjusted analyses, history of AFF and AFF with index MI were associated with a significant increase in the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio (HR): 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32–2.35 and HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.37–2.10, respectively), remaining significant after adjustment only in those with AFF with index MI (HR=1.40, 95% CI 1.12–1.74) (Fig. 1). This was primarily driven by an increase in the crude and adjusted risk of incident HF, both in those with a history of AFF and AFF with index MI (adjusted HR=1.56, 95% CI 1.10–2.22 and HR=1.55, 95% CI 1.18–2.03, respectively). An increase in the crude risk of CV death was present in patients with a history of AFF and AFF with index MI (HR=1.57, 95% CI 1.04–2.39 and HR=1.66, 95% CI 1.23–2.24, respectively), yet did not remain significant after adjustment. The risk of the composite outcome of death from coronary heart disease, non-fatal MI, hospitalisation for angina or coronary was not associated with either a history of AFF or AFF with index MI, in unadjusted or adjusted analyses (adjusted HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.57–1.19 and HR=1.00, 95% CI 0.78–1.29, respectively) (Fig. 1). Neither history of AFF nor AFF with index MI modified the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan (p>0.05). Conclusions In this post-MI cohort, history of AFF and AFF occurring with the index MI event were associated with an increased risk of CV death or incident heart failure, primarily driven by an increased risk of incident HF. However, the risk of the composite coronary outcome was not associated with AFF status, compared to other studied outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): The PARADISE-MI trial was funded by Novartis
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".