Post-operative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: Challenges throughout the patient journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common complication of cardiac surgery, occurring in up to half of patients. Post-operative AF (POAF) refers to new-onset AF in a patient without a history of AF that occurs within the first 4 weeks after cardiac surgery. POAF is associated with short-term mortality and morbidity, but its long-term significance is unclear. This article reviews existing evidence and research challenges for the management of POAF in patients who have had cardiac surgery. Specific challenges are discussed in four phases of care. Pre-operatively, clinicians need to be able to identify high-risk patients, and initiate prophylaxis to prevent POAF. In hospital, when POAF is detected, clinicians need to manage symptoms, stabilize hemodynamics and prevent increases in length of stay. In the month after discharge, the focus is on minimizing symptoms and preventing readmission. Some patients require short term oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Over the long term (2-3 months after surgery and beyond), clinicians need to identify which patients with POAF have paroxysmal or persistent AF and can benefit from evidence-based therapies for AF, including long-term oral anticoagulation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".