Key result
Clinical risk models for AFib demonstrate fair to moderate discrimination for predicting adverse outcomes.
Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of major cardiovascular and neurological complications, prompting the need to identify risk predictors and develop risk models for non-stroke adverse outcomes.
Can risk models based on routine clinical variables predict major cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular outcomes in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=198,995)
Yes
Can risk models based on routine clinical variables predict major cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular outcomes in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Risk prediction models based on routine clinical variables demonstrate fair to good performance for predicting major cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular outcomes in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation.
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of major cardiovascular and neurological complications. Utilization of risk schemes for identifying patients at risk for stroke has improved outcomes for patients with AF. Objectives Using linked UK primary and secondary care data, we identified risk predictors and develop risk models for heart failure hospitalisation, myocardial infarction hospitalisation, vascular dementia, sepsis, sudden cardiac death, and all-cause death in the AF population. Methods We included 198,995 patients diagnosed with AF between January 1998 and May 2016. We developed multivariable Cox regression models to predict outcome incidence after AF diagnosis, using 70% of the data for derivation and 30% for validation. Model performance was assessed using Harrell’s C-index. Predictor variables were selected based on their availability in routine clinical practice. Results Among the assessed predictors, excessive alcohol intake, heart failure, myocardial infarction, sepsis, and stroke showed the strongest associations with adverse outcomes. The prediction models demonstrated fair to moderate discrimination, with c-index values of 0.70 (95%CI 0.70–0.71) for heart failure hospitalisation, 0.64 (95%CI 0.63–0.65) for myocardial infarction hospitalisation, 0.76 (95%CI 0.75–0.77) for vascular dementia, 0.66 (95%CI 0.65–0.67) for sepsis, 0.65 (95%CI 0.62–0.68) for sudden cardiac death, and 0.71 (95%CI 0.71–0.71) for all-cause death. Conclusions In patients with AF, we developed prediction models that demonstrate fair to good performance. Our models, based on variables easily obtainable in routine clinical care, may facilitate patient risk stratification and guide further diagnostic or preventive interventions.
Yoshimura et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation (n=198,995). Clinical risk predictors was evaluated on All-cause death (c-index 0.71, 95% CI 0.71-0.71).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: