Sinus node dysfunction and stroke risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The role of cardiac arrhythmia in ischaemic stroke is widely studied, but the size of the stroke risk in patients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) with and without atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of stroke and its associated factors in patients with SND with and without AF. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Database were searched until December 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies that investigate stroke in patients with SND diagnosed with or without AF/atrial flutter. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Literature quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration Tool. The overall risk of stroke was estimated using the random-effects model. The generic inverse variance method was used to calculate the pooled estimates of stroke-associated factors. We performed a sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of the 929 records retrieved, 6 papers (106 163 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The average yearly stroke incidence in patients with SND was 1.542% (95% CI: 1.334% to 1.749%). The stroke incidence was similar between the isolated SND (1.587%; 95% CI: 1.510% to 1.664%) and non-isolated (SND+AF) (1.660%; 95% CI: 0.705% to 2.615%) groups. AF (HR, 95% CI: 1.53 (1.01 to 2.33)), stroke/transient ischaemia attack/other thrombotic events (HR, 95% CI: 2.54 (1.14 to 5.69)), hypertension (HR, 95% CI: 1.51 (1.11 to 2.07)) and heart failure (HR, 95% CI: 1.41 (1.01 to 1.97)) were associated with stroke in the SND population. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients with SND carry a similar risk of stroke to those with combined SND and AF. Future studies are needed to investigate whether interventions targeting stroke prevention, such as anticoagulation therapy, can help to prevent stroke in patients with SND. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023408436.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".