Why the study?
Despite the clinical and economic implications of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery, ample variability in POAF assessment methods and definitions exists across studies.
Does the assessment method and definition of postoperative atrial fibrillation influence its reported incidence and association with clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
Comparison
Different POAF assessment methods and definitions
Design
Systematic review and study-level meta-analysis
Key result
Different POAF assessment methods (continuous telemetry, telemetry plus daily ECG, daily ECG) showed no significant difference in POAF incidence after cardiac surgery (27%, 27%, and 19%; P>0.05).
Authors
Loading...
POAF incidence is robust to assessment method; confirms consistent estimates for clinical surveillance and trial standardization.
Meta-Analysis (n=197,774)
Does the assessment method and definition of postoperative atrial fibrillation influence its reported incidence and association with clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
p-value: p=>0.05
The incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation and its association with adverse outcomes are generally not influenced by the assessment method or definition used, except in patients undergoing isolated CABG.
Perezgrovas‐Olaria et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery (n=197,774). POAF assessment method (continuous telemetry, telemetry plus daily ECG, daily ECG only) vs. Different assessment methods was evaluated on POAF incidence (p=>0.05). Different POAF assessment methods (continuous telemetry, telemetry plus daily ECG, daily ECG) showed no significant difference in POAF incidence after cardiac surgery (27%, 27%, and 19%; P>0.05).