MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398767755 · doi:10.1093/europace/euae102.050

Effects of long-term continuous screening for atrial fibrillation on heart failure events - results from the randomized LOOP Study

2024· article· en· W4398767755 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Yixi Xing, Søren Højberg, D W Krieger, Claus Graff, Morten S. Olesen, Jeff S. Healey, William F. McIntyre, Axel Brandes, Lars Køber, Ketil Haugan, Jesper Hastrup Svendsen, Søren Zöga Diederichsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationHeart failureEjection fractionCardiologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)PopulationImplantable loop recorderHazard ratioConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Previous research established a solid link between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). However, while two landmark trials have assessed AF screening for stroke prevention, the potential impact of AF screening on HF remains unclear. Purpose This secondary analysis of the LOOP Study aimed to investigate the effects of AF screening on HF events. Methods The LOOP Study was a randomized clinical trial evaluating long-term continuous AF screening with implantable loop recorder (ILR) in individuals aged 70-90 years and with ≥1 of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, HF, and/or prior stroke. At inclusion, study participants were randomized 1:3 to either ILR screening or usual care. Anticoagulation was recommended upon AF detection, whereas other treatment was left to the discretion of the treating physician. In this secondary analysis, a cause-specific Cox regression model was applied to explore the effects of AF screening vs usual care on 1) time-to-first HF event and 2) total HF events, with the latter performed using the Andersen-and-Gill extension. HF event was defined as newly diagnosed HF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% or any HF hospitalization in participants with prior diagnosis of HF with reduced ejection fraction. Results In total, 6004 participants were enrolled in the LOOP Study: 1501 in the ILR group vs 4503 in the Control group. The study population had a mean age of 75 years and slightly more males than females (53% vs 47%), whereas 266 (4.4%) were previously diagnosed with HF at baseline. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years, a total of 208 HF events were reported in 175 (2.9%) participants: 37 events among 34 (2.3%) participants in the ILR group vs 171 events among 141 (3.1%) participants in the Control group. For time-to-first HF event, the annualized event rate was 0.44%/year [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.62] vs 0.61%/year [95% CI: 0.51-0.72] for ILR vs Control, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.72 [95% CI: 0.50-1.05]. When assessing total HF events, a significantly lower event rate was observed in the ILR group (0.47%/year [95% CI: 0.33-0.65]) compared with the Control group (0.73%/year [95% CI: 0.62-0.84]), resulting in a HR of 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.97]. Conclusions Among elderly individuals with additional stroke risk factors, long-term continuous AF screening led to a significantly reduced risk of total HF events, compared with usual care. This should be considered as hypothesis-generating and warrants further investigation.Cumulative incidence of HF event

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207