» Articles » PMID: 34607811

Prediction of Incident Atrial Fibrillation in Community-based Electronic Health Records: a Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal Heart
Date 2021 Oct 5
PMID 34607811
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and is associated with an increased risk of stroke. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse multivariable prediction models derived and/or validated in electronic health records (EHRs) and/or administrative claims databases for the prediction of incident AF in the community.

Methods: Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase were searched for records from inception to 23 March 2021. Measures of discrimination were extracted and pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed through a 95% prediction interval (PI). Risk of bias was assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool and certainty in effect estimates by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, describing nine prediction models, with four eligible for meta-analysis including 9 289 959 patients. The CHADS (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age>75, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke or transient ischemic attack) (summary c-statistic 0.674; 95% CI 0.610 to 0.732; 95% PI 0.526-0.815), CHADS-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age>75 (2 points), Stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism (2 points), Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex category) (summary c-statistic 0.679; 95% CI 0.620 to 0.736; 95% PI 0.531-0.811) and HATCH (Hypertension, Age, stroke or Transient ischemic attack, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Heart failure) (summary c-statistic 0.669; 95% CI 0.600 to 0.732; 95% PI 0.513-0.803) models resulted in a c-statistic with a statistically significant 95% PI and moderate discriminative performance. No model met eligibility for inclusion in meta-analysis if studies at high risk of bias were excluded and certainty of effect estimates was 'low'. Models derived by machine learning demonstrated strong discriminative performance, but lacked rigorous external validation.

Conclusions: Models externally validated for prediction of incident AF in community-based EHR demonstrate moderate predictive ability and high risk of bias. Novel methods may provide stronger discriminative performance.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021245093.

Citing Articles

The mCHEST Score for Incident Atrial Fibrillation: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis).

Li Y, Li Q, Wang L, Zhang T, Gao H, Pastori D JACC Adv. 2025; 4(2):101521.

PMID: 39877666 PMC: 11773033. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101521.


Evidence Gaps and Lessons in the Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Study in a Primary Care Setting (PREFATE Study).

Clua-Espuny J, Hernandez-Pinilla A, Gentille-Lorente D, Muria-Subirats E, Forcadell-Arenas T, de Diego-Cabanes C Biomedicines. 2025; 13(1).

PMID: 39857703 PMC: 11759169. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines13010119.


Predictive value of NT pro BNP for new-onset atrial fibrillation in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

Liu X, Chen S, Pan H, Zhang Z, Wang Y, Jiang Y ESC Heart Fail. 2024; 11(6):4296-4307.

PMID: 39193834 PMC: 11631295. DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.14951.


Screening and detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: current practice and future perspectives.

Brik T, Harskamp R, Himmelreich J Eur Heart J Suppl. 2024; 26(Suppl 4):iv12-iv18.

PMID: 39099572 PMC: 11292407. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suae074.


Development and trends in research on hypertension and atrial fibrillation: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022.

Tang N, Zhou Q, Liu S, Li K, Liu Z, Zhang Q Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(21):e38264.

PMID: 38788040 PMC: 11124767. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038264.


References
1.
He Y, Ong Y, Li X, Din F, Brown E, Timofeeva M . Performance of prediction models on survival outcomes of colorectal cancer with surgical resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2019; 29:196-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.05.014. View

2.
Snell K, Ensor J, Debray T, Moons K, Riley R . Meta-analysis of prediction model performance across multiple studies: Which scale helps ensure between-study normality for the C-statistic and calibration measures?. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 27(11):3505-3522. PMC: 6193210. DOI: 10.1177/0962280217705678. View

3.
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

4.
Hart R, Pearce L, Aguilar M . Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146(12):857-67. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00007. View

5.
Collins G, de Groot J, Dutton S, Omar O, Shanyinde M, Tajar A . External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:40. PMC: 3999945. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-40. View