Adverse outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and a pacemaker: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher rate of pacemaker (PM) implantations compared to the general population. Little is known if a present PM in AF patients is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We therefore investigated the incidence of adverse outcomes in AF patients with PM compared to AF patients without a PM, and if the presence of a PM is independently associated with these outcomes. Methods Data from two Swiss prospective, multicenter cohort studies (Swiss-AF, Beat-AF) were analyzed. Yearly follow-ups (FU) were done in both cohorts with standardized assessment of PM status, cardiovascular risk factors, medication, and outcome events. The first main outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism. The second main outcome was hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of MACE. We performed time-updated, multi-adjusted Cox-regression analyses to assess the associations of PM status with the investigated outcomes. Results In 3,675 patients, the median age was 71.4 years, 28.8% were female and 445 (12.1%) patients had a PM at baseline. Over a median FU time of 7 years, 238 (6.5%) patients additionally received a PM. AF patients with PM had higher unadjusted incidence rates for MACE (5.97 vs 3.37 per 100 patient-years) and HF (5.08 vs 2.61 per 100 patient-years), compared to patients without a PM. All secondary outcomes were more frequent in AF patients with PM. In multi-adjusted regression analyses, we did not find conclusive associations of a present PM with MACE (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) [95% CI] 1.14 [0.96; 1.35, p=0.125]) or with HF (aHR [95% CI] 1.15 [0.95; 1.39, p=0.145]). A present PM was not associated with any of the secondary outcomes, except with cardiovascular death (aHR [95% CI] 1.24 [1.01; 1.52, p=0.038]) (Figure). Conclusion Patients with AF and a PM experienced substantially higher event rates for MACE and hospitalization for HF compared to AF patients without a PM. The presence of a PM itself, however, was not associated with adverse outcomes, although a slight risk increase cannot be ruled out.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".