Abstract 4141927: Risk of myocardial infarction in paroxysmal vs. non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: an individual patient-level data analysis of 71,466 patients from COMBINE AF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prior data suggest the MI risk may be higher with paroxysmal AF (PAF) vs. non-paroxysmal AF (non-PAF). Proposed mechanisms include tachycardia-induced oxidative stress (via LOX-1) with microvascular flow abnormalities, ischemia downstream of a fixed coronary obstruction, and plaque rupture. Methods: We compared MI rates in pts with PAF vs. non-PAF in COMBINE AF, a patient-level metanalysis of 4 RCTS of DOACs vs warfarin (ARISTOTLE, ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48, RE-LY,ROCKET AF). Secondary endpoints were ischemic stroke and CV death. Cox proportional-hazards models stratified by trial and adjusted for elements of the CHADS-VASc score were constructed. Sensitivity analyses were performed across subgroups, omitting pts on lower-dose DOAC regimens, and accounting for competing risk of death. Results: Of 71,466 pts, 16,609 (23%) had PAF at enrollment. Pts with PAF vs non-PAF were similar age (median 72 vs 72. P=0.15), but more likely women (43 vs 36%), with prior CAD (35 vs 31%), and on aspirin (41 vs 32%); but less likely Asian race (12 vs 15%) or with CHADS-VASc score > 4 (59 vs 60%), p < 0.002 for each. During >160,000 pt-yrs of follow-up, 1033 MIs occurred: 277 (1.67%) in pts with PAF vs 766 (1.40%) in pts with non-PAF, corresponding to rates of 0.81% and 0.70% per pt-year. The HR adj for MI with PAF vs non--paroxysmal AF was 1.17 [1.02-1.35], p=0.028 (Fig). Ischemic stroke occurred in 364 (2.19%) vs 1425 (2.60%) pts with PAF vs non--paroxysmal AF (HR adj 0.81 [0.72-0.91], p<0.001). CV death occurred in 625 (3.77%) pts with PAF vs 3027 (5.52%) with non-paroxysmal AF (HR adj 0.75 [0.68-0.81], p<0.001). No significant effect modification of pt characteristics on MI risk by AF pattern were present, although a trend was seen for higher MI risk with PAF vs non-PAF in pts with prior CAD (HR 1.34 [1.12-1.59]) vs no prior CAD (HR 0.96 [0.76-1.22]), P INT 0.06. Results were consistent across trials, by anticoagulant, excluding lower dose DOACs, and accounting for competing mortality risk. Conclusions: This individual patient-level metanalysis of 71,466 pts from COMBINE AF shows that the adjusted risk of MI is higher in pts with PAF than non--paroxysmal AF, while the adjusted risks of ischemic stroke and CV death were lower in pts with PAF.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".