MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161949232 · doi:10.82308/52361

Population-level evaluation of ablation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and comorbid heart failure

2020· dissertation· en· W7161949232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Samuel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationHeart failureCohortRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)PopulationAblationHeart diseaseCatheter ablation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist. The presence of both diseases further increases the risk of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and stroke compared to either disease individually. Pharmacologic therapy has limited effectiveness in this subpopulation, therefore a minimally invasive rhythm control strategy, catheter ablation (CA), has been used to treat AF in patients with HF. Randomized trials showed CA is safe and reduces all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations, however, current clinical guidelines recognize the evidence for CA use in the AF-HF population is limited. The aim of the present thesis was to evaluate treatment selection patterns, safety, and long-term effectiveness of CA in a real-world AF-HF population and address methodological gaps from randomized trials. Linked hospital discharge summary [Maintenance et Exploitation des Données pour l’Étude de la Clientèle Hospitalière (Med-Echo)] and claims [la Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ)] administrative databases from Quebec, Canada were used to construct the AF-HF cohort (2000-2017). The final overall cohort consisted of 112,955 AF-HF patients, of which 700 patients underwent CA. Of patients with government prescription insurance coverage, 432 patients underwent CA of 101,931 AF-HF patients. Both the overall and medication cohorts included the largest number of CA patients with AF-HF studied till date. Current clinical guidelines are nonspecific about the referral criteria for CA in the AF-HF population. Thus, the real-world treatment selection pattern is unknown. The first manuscript demonstrated that (1) CA was rarely used to treat AF in patients with HF, (2) CA patients had a minimal number of comorbidities, and (3) women had a lower probability of treatment. Structural differences in the heart of HF patients may make CA more technically challenging and potentially riskier to perform compared to patients without HF. The second manuscript showed that amongst AF-HF patients who underwent CA, the incidence of major adverse events was low and comparable to rate of major adverse events in randomized trials and real-world evaluations in the overall AF population, regardless of the presence of HF. Randomized trials demonstrated a reduction in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations with CA in selected patients; however, whether these results are generalizable to a real-world population and persist in the long-term remains to be shown. The third manuscript investigated the long-term effectiveness of CA in AF-HF patients in reducing the incidence of: 1) all-cause mortality, 2) HF hospitalizations, and 3) major morbidities. We found that CA was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to non-CA patients. CA was also protective against HF hospitalizations for the first 3-years after the date of CA. Although no difference in the risk of stroke and major bleeding was detected between CA and non-CA patients, larger studies are warranted. The present thesis investigated treatment patterns, safety, and long-term effectiveness in the largest and longest cohort of AF-HF patients who underwent CA till date. In addition, the specific patient population investigated reflects those encountered real-world practice. Methodologically, this thesis advances knowledge gained from prior studies and randomized trials by illustrating the time-varying effects of CA over a long follow-up period for clinically relevant outcomes. Also, time-varying effects of medications and cardiac device use as well as the competing risk of mortality were included to better quantify the risk of a specific event, all of which fill methodological gaps present in current research on CA in AF-HF patients. Finally, results of the present thesis better informs clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of this challenging subpopulation

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→