MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400783559 · doi:10.1161/circep.124.012764

Heart Failure Events After Long-term Continuous Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the Randomized LOOP Study

2024· article· en· W4400783559 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Yixi Xing, Søren Højberg, Derk W. Kriegerg, 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

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialTerm (time)Loop (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence indicates that even device-detected subclinical atrial fibrillation is associated with a higher risk of heart failure (HF). However, the potential impact of atrial fibrillation screening on HF remains unknown. METHODS: The LOOP Study (Atrial Fibrillation detected by Continuous ECG Monitoring using Implantable Loop Recorder to prevent Stroke in High-risk Individuals) evaluated the effects of atrial fibrillation screening on stroke prevention using an implantable loop recorder (ILR) versus usual care in older individuals with additional stroke risk factors. In this secondary analysis, we explored the following HF end points: (1) HF event or cardiovascular death; (2) HF event; (3) event with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and (4) HFrEF event or cardiovascular death. Outcomes were assessed in a Cox model both as time-to-first events and as total (first and recurrent) events analyzed using the Andersen-and-Gill method. RESULTS: Of 6004 participants (mean age 74.7 and 52.7% men), 1501 were randomized to ILR screening and 4503 to the control group. In total, 77 (5.1%) in the ILR group versus 295 (6.6%) in the control group experienced the primary outcome of an HF event or cardiovascular death. Compared with usual care, ILR screening was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the primary outcome for the time-to-first event analysis (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-1.01]) and the total event analysis (hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.59-1.01]). Similar results were obtained for the HF event. A significant risk reduction in total events was observed in the ILR group for the composite of HFrEF event or cardiovascular death and for HFrEF event (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.98] and 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44-0.97], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In an older population with additional stroke risk factors, ILR screening for atrial fibrillation tended to be associated with a lower rate of total HF events and cardiovascular death, particularly those related to HFrEF. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02036450.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207