MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388594742 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.577

Kidney function by creatinine and cystatin c and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation

2023· article· en· W4388594742 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Schweigler, Elisa Hennings, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Nicolas Rodondi, A Stauber, Giorgio Moschovitis, L. Bolt, A Mueller, Michael Coslovsky, Christine S. Zuern, LH Bonati, David Conen, Stefan Osswald, M Kuehne, Philipp Krisai

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineCystatin CRenal functionKidney diseaseCreatinineInternal medicineMaceAtrial fibrillationCardiologyHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionConfidence intervalPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with chronic kidney disease are at an increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events and all-cause mortality. Accurate kidney function estimation is key for risk assessment. Creatinine is commonly used to calculate the Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR). However, cystatin c has been described to be more sensitive than creatinine independent of muscle mass, autoimmune disease, inflammation or consuming diseases. Thus, cystatin C might be superior for risk assessment in patients with AF. Aim We aimed to investigate the associations between kidney function, assessed by creatinine and cystatin c, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), its individual components, and major bleedings. Methods We enrolled 3865 AF patients into two prospective, multicenter cohort studies. Creatinine and cystatin c were measured at baseline and clinical outcome events were assessed yearly. We calculated GFR using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] formula based on either creatinine (GFRcr), cystatin c (GFRcy) or both (GFRc2). Primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of stroke or systemic embolism, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE and major bleeding. Multivariable adjusted Cox regression analyses were built to investigate the associations between kidney function and adverse outcome events. Results Mean age was 71 ± 10 years and 28% were female. Mean creatinine and cystatin levels were 103 ± 32 μmol/l and 1.2 ± 0.4 mg/l, respectively, translating to a GFRc2 of 63.8 ± 21.7 ml/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 6 years, the incidence rates for MACE (per 100 person-years) across quartiles (Q1-Q4) of GFRc2 were 22.0, 19.6, 17.4 and 15.9, respectively (Figure). When using multivariable adjusted Cox regression analysis, MACE was significantly associated with GFRcr (per 1 standard deviation: HR 0.87 (95%CI 0.77; 0.97) p=0.01), GFRcy (HR 0.68 (CI 0.58; 0.78), p<0.001) and GFRc2 (HR 0.75 (CI 0.66; 0.86), p<0.001). This association was mainly driven by cardiovascular death (Table). Major bleeding was associated with GFRcy (HR 0.73 (0.60-0.88) p=0.001) and GFRc2 (HR 0.80 (0.67-0.95), p=0.01), but not with GFRcr (HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.78-1.07) p=0.25). Conclusion Among AF patients, GFR equations including cystatin c were associated both with MACE and bleeding events, while creatinine based GFR equations were only associated with MACE. Therefore, Cystatin c based GFR equations might offer more comprehensive risk stratification in AF patients.Figure 1Table 1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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