Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582707›Full record

ArticleCJC open2024

Temporal Trends in the Management Practices of Clinically Important Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery.

Michael Ke Wang, P J Devereaux, Maura Marcucci, Vladimir Lomivorotov, Daniel I Sessler, Matthew T V Chan, Flavia K Borges, Sandra N Ofori, Pilar Paniagua, James D Douketis and 21 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors.

Michael Ke WangDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
P J DevereauxDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Maura MarcucciDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Vladimir LomivorotovE. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Novosibirsk, Russia.
Daniel I SesslerPopulation Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Matthew T V ChanThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Flavia K BorgesDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sandra N OforiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Pilar PaniaguaDepartment of Anesthesia, University Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
James D DouketisDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Alben SigamaniNumen Health, Bangalore, India.
Joel L ParlowQueens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Chew Y WangUniversiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Juan Carlos VillarResearch Centre, Fundación Cardioinfantil-Instituto de Cardiología, Bogotá, Colombia.
Sadeesh K SrinathanUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Wojciech SzczeklikJagiellonian University Medical College, Centre for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Kraków, Poland.
María José Martínez-ZapataIberoamerican Cochrane Center, IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
German MalagaCONEVID, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú.
Soori SivakumaranMazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
William F McIntyreDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
María-Virginia Rodríguez FunesHospital Nacional Rosales, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Patricia CruzHospital General University Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Jesús Alvarez-GarciaDepartment of Cardiology at Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Isabelle GreissUniversity of Montreal Hospital Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ekaterine PopovaSant Pau Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.
Martin E HemelsRijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Axel BrandesDepartment of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Clara K ChowWestmead Applied Research Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Satish Prasad BarnawalB and B Hospital, Gwarko, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Jeff S HealeyDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
David ConenDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common cardiac complication after noncardiac surgery. Little is known about how patients with POAF are managed acutely and whether practices have changed over time. Methods: We conducted an observational substudy of patients who had POAF, were at elevated cardiovascular risk, and were enrolled in the PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-1, 2 and 3 trials between 2002 and 2021. POAF was defined as new, clinically important atrial fibrillation occurring within 30 days after surgery. We assessed the use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment in response to POAF, at hospital discharge and at 30 days after surgery. We assessed for temporal trends using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of the 27,896 patients included, 545 (1.9%) developed clinically important POAF. Patients received rhythm-control treatment in 48.6% of cases. The level of use of rhythm-control treatment increased over the course of the trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3; 40.9% vs 49.5% vs 59.1%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of rhythm-control treatment (odds ratio, 1.05 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09). Anticoagulation treatment was prescribed in 21% of POAF cases. The level of anticoagulation treatement use was higher in POISE-3, compared to that in the 2 previous trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3-16.4% vs 16.5% vs 33.6%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of anticoagulation treatment (odds ratio, 1.06 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11). Conclusions: Despite the absence of randomized controlled trials, the level of use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment for POAF is rising. High-quality trials are needed urgently to determine whether these interventions are safe and effective in this population.

Identifiers

PMID39582707
PMCPMC11583878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.