4.1 Article

A Novel Risk Score to Predict New Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

期刊

HEART SURGERY FORUM
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 E489-E496

出版社

FORUM MULTIMEDIA PUBLISHING, LLC
DOI: 10.1532/hsf.2151

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common after cardiac surgery and contributes to increased morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to derive and validate a predictive model for AF after CABG in patients, incorporating novel echocardiographic and laboratory values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients at our institution without preexisting dysrhythmia who underwent on-pump, isolated CABG from 2011-2015. The primary outcome was new onset AF lasting >1 hour on continuous telemetry or requiring medical treatment. Patients with a preoperative echocardiographic measurement of left atrial diameter were included in a risk model, and were randomly divided into derivation (80%) and validation (20%) cohorts. The predictors of AF after CABG (PAFAC) score was derived from a multivariable logistic regression model by multiplying the adjusted odds ratios of significant risk factors (P < .05) by a factor of 4 to derive an integer point system. Results: 1307 patients underwent isolated CABG, including 762/1307 patients with a preoperative left atrial diameter measurement. 209/762 patients (27%) developed new onset AF including 165/611 (27%) in the derivation cohort. We identified four risk factors independently associated with postoperative AF which comprised the PAFAC score: age > 60 years (5 points), White race (5 points), baseline GFR < 90 mL/min (4 points) and left atrial diameter > 4.5 cm (4 points). Scores ranged from 0-18. The PAFAC score was then applied to the validation cohort and predicted incidence of AF strongly correlated with observed incidence (r = 0.92). Conclusion: The PAFAC score is easy to calculate and can be used upon ICU admission to reliably identify patients at high risk of developing AF after isolated CABG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据