ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2019
[Atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis and non-cardiac infections].
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is by far the most frequent cardiac arrhythmia associated with sepsis and infections. Newly occurring AF due to infections is associated with a deterioration of the prognosis for acute events and also for the long-term prognosis of patients. The risk of developing AF during an infection depends on general (e.g. age, structural heart disease) as well as infection-specific risk factors (e.g. sepsis severity, vasopressor treatment). Current guidelines do not make specific recommendations on the treatment of infection-associated AF and very few prospective data are available. The use of beta blockers appears to be safe for both prevention and frequency control of AF even in patients requiring catecholamines. For specific antiarrhythmic treatment, the use of class I antiarrhythmic agents is conceivable as an alternative to the predominantly used amiodarone. Newly occurring AF within infections has long been considered a specific entity with a low risk of recurrence, so that only a small proportion of patients received long-term effective anticoagulation; however, data from large retrospective studies suggest significantly higher recurrence rates. Therefore, the question of whether this group of patients benefits from long-term effective anticoagulation and extended monitoring of arrhythmia should be the subject of future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.