MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Extracranial systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation: an individual patient-level meta-analysis of 71 683 patients randomized to NOAC vs warfarin from the COMBINE-AF study

2024· article· en· W4403807854 on OpenAlexaff
S. Al Said, Eugene Braunwald, Michael G. Palazzolo, Barbara Geller, Christian T. Ruff, Elliot M. Antman, Anthony Carnicelli, Stuart J. Connolly, John W. Eikelboom, Christopher B. Granger, Manesh R. Patel, Lars Wallentin, Robert P. Giugliano

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationWarfarinInternal medicineCardiologyMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialEmbolic strokeIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Atrial Fibrillation (AF) poses a significant risk for both ischemic stroke and systemic embolic events (SEE). While the effectiveness of NOAC in preventing ischemic stroke is well-established, there is a lack of detailed analyses specifically characterizing SEE, which constitutes 5- 10% of all embolic events. Purpose To study the clinical characteristics, procedural management, and outcomes by randomized treatment (NOAC vs warfarin) of patients with SEE. Methods Using the COMBINE AF dataset, we conducted an individual patient level meta-analysis of 4 global RCTs (RE-LY, ROCKET AF, ARISTOTLE, ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) of warfarin vs. NOAC in AF to assess risks of SEE. Outcomes were analyzed as time-to-first-event using a Cox proportional hazards model. Two authors independently reviewed deaths within 30 days after SEE to identify fatal SEE. Moreover, we independently assessed post SEE procedures to determined relatedness to SEE. Results There were 188 total SEEs, 9 patients (5%) had SEE then developed ischemic stroke; 16 patients (9%) had ischemic stroke then developed SEE; 1 patient had SEE and ischemic stroke simultaneously. Among the 171 patients with SEEs as first event, the median (IQR) age was 75 (68-80) years, 49.7% were female, median (IQR) of BMI was 27.5 (23.5-30.7) kg/m2, mean (SD) of CHADS2-VASC score was 4.7 (1.5). As compared with ischemic stroke (n=1789), SEE patients were more likely to have, PAD (16.5% vs. 5.4%, p <0.001), prior MI (24% vs. 17%, p = 0.02), be Vitamin K Antagonist experienced (57% vs 46%; p=0.007), have worse renal function (median CrCl mL/min; 58 vs 62, p = 0.02) and less likely to have paroxysmal AF (14% vs. 20%, p = 0.05). Of the total of 188 SEEs, 33 (18%) were fatal, 62 (31%) patients underwent surgical or percutaneous intervention (Fig). Standard dose (SD) NOAC significantly reduced the risk of SEE by 29% (95% CI 1-49%, p=0.04) compared with warfarin, However, no significant difference in the risk of SEE was observed between low dose (LD) NOAC and warfarin (Fig). Conclusion Standard dose NOAC was superior to warfarin in preventing SEE in AF patients. This benefit trends to be more pronounced for fatal cases. While SEE were about 1/10th as frequent as ischemic stroke in patients with AF, they were associated with significant morbidity and mortality and often required surgical or percutaneous intervention to restore blood flow.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.037
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→