MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Atrial fibrillation in patients with high-risk acute myocardial infarction – the PARADISE-MI trial

2022· article· en· W4306251186 on OpenAlexaff
Karola Jering, Brian Claggett, Offer Amir, A J Cadena Bonfanti, M.-C. Cho, Cristopher Granger, L M Gullestad, Hsien‐Li Kao, João Morais, Jérémie Tanguay, Mariya Tokmakova, P Widimský, Scott D. Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyHazard ratioHeart failureAtrial fibrillationEjection fractionValsartanClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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