Trial reportHeart rhythm2024
Automated interpretations of single-lead electrocardiograms predict incident atrial fibrillation: The VITAL-AF trial.
Trial report in Heart rhythm, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Clinical, Genetic, and Electrocardiogram-Based Artificial Intelligence to Estimate Risk of Incident Atrial Fibrillation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle-lead electrocardiograms (1L ECGs) are increasingly used for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. Automated 1L ECG interpretation may have prognostic value for future AF in cases in which screening does not result in a short-term AF diagnosis.
objectiveWe sought to investigate the association between automated 1L ECG interpretation and incident AF.
methodsVITAL-AF was a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of screening for AF by 1L ECGs. For this study, participants were divided into 4 groups based on automated classification of 1L ECGs. Patients with prevalent AF were excluded. Associations between groups and incident AF were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for risk factors. The start of follow-up was defined as 60 days after the latest 1L ECG (as some individuals had numerous screening 1L ECGs).
resultsThe study sample included never screened (n = 16,306), normal (n = 10,914), other (n = 2675), and possible AF (n = 561). Possible AF had the highest AF incidence (5.91 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.24-8.23). Possible AF was associated with greater hazard of incident AF compared with normal (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.66-3.71). Other was associated with greater hazard of incident AF compared with normal (1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.90).
conclusionIn patients undergoing AF screening with 1L ECGs without prevalent AF or AF within 60 days of screening, presumptive positive and indeterminate 1L ECG interpretations were associated with future AF. Abnormal 1L ECG recordings may identify individuals at higher risk for future AF.
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.