SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
Systematic review and meta-analysis of stroke and thromboembolism risk in atrial fibrillation with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction heart failure.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Component-level associations of anemia and renal dysfunction with competing first events in acute heart failure with atrial fibrillation.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Primary and Recurrent Erysipelas-Epidemiological Patterns in a Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Heart Failure and Stroke Risk in Atrial Fibrillation: Temporal Trends From a Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke and thromboembolism (TE) are significant complications in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). The impact of ejection fraction status on these risks remains unclear. This study aims to compare the risk of stroke and TE in patients with AF and HF with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction.
methodsLiterature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases was done for studies in adult (20 years or more) population of AF patients. Included studies had reported on the incidences of stroke and/or TE in patients with AF and associated HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Cohort (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, and studies that were based on secondary analysis of data from a trial were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Exploratory analysis was conducted based on the different cut-offs used to define HFrEF and HFpEF.
resultsTwenty studies were analyzed. In the overall analysis, HFrEF in AF patients was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stroke and systemic TE (HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.96; n = 20, I2 = 86.6%), compared to HFpEF. However, most studies showed comparable risk of stroke among the two groups of patients except for two studies that had documented significantly reduced risk. Upon doing the sensitivity analysis by excluding these two studies, we found similar risk among the two group of subjects and with no heterogeneity (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.03; n = 18, I2 = 0.0%). Exploratory analysis also showed that the risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism was similar between those with HFpEF and HFrEF.
conclusionThe findings suggest that there is no significantly different risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in cases of AF with associated HFpEF or HFrEF. The finding does not support integration of left ventricular ejection fraction into stroke risk assessments.
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.