4.1 Review

New-onset atrial fibrillation is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ACTA CARDIOLOGICA
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 162-169

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00015385.2018.1477035

关键词

New-onset atrial fibrillation; critically ill patients; intensive care unit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most comorbid conditions in critically ill patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU). Multiple studies have suggested that there may be an association between new-onset AF and adverse outcome in critically ill patients. However, there are no meta-analyses to assess this association. Methods: Studies were systematically searched from electronic databases. Studies that examined the relationship between new-onset AF and adverse outcomes including mortality and length of stay in ICU patients were included. Studies that included patients with prior AF were excluded. The pooled effect size was calculated with a random-effect model, weighted for the inverse of variance, to determine an association between new-onset AF and in-hospital mortality. Heterogeneity was assessed with I-2. Results: Twelve studies were included. Pooled analysis showed statistically significant difference rate of the hospital mortality between patients with and without new-onset AF (OR 2.70; 95% CI 2.43-3.00). Subgroup analysis of only patients with sepsis or septic shock showed a significant association between new-onset AF and in-hospital mortality (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.88-2.87). No significant heterogeneity was observed (I-2 = 0%) in both analyses. Pooled analysis of four studies also showed a significant association between new-onset AF and short-term mortality (OR 2.22; 95% CI 1.28-3.83) with moderate heterogeneity (I-2 = 67%). Conclusions: New-onset AF is associated with worse outcome in critically ill patients. Further studies should be done to evaluate for causality and adjust for confounders.

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