Evidence Hub

Temporal trends in lifetime risks of atrial fibrillation and its complications between 2000 and 2022: Danish, nationwide, population based cohort study

Nicklas Vinter, P. Cordsen, S. Johnsen, L. Staerk, Emelia J. Benjamin, Lars Frost, Ludovic Trinquart

British medical journal, 2024

362 participants · 107 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To examine how the lifetime risks of atrial fibrillation and of complications after atrial fibrillation changed over time. Design Danish, nationwide, population based cohort study. Setting Population of Denmark from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. Participants 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women and 48.3% men) who did not have atrial fibrillation at 45 years of age or older were followed up until incident atrial fibrillation, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first. All 362 721 individuals with incident atrial fibrillation (46.4% women and 53.6% men), but with no prevalent complication, were further followed up until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Main outcome measures Lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation and lifetime risks of complications after atrial fibrillation over two prespecified periods (2000-10 v 2011-22). Results The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation increased from 24.2% in 2000-10 to 30.9% in 2011-22 (difference 6.7% (95% confidence interval 6.5% to 6.8%)). After atrial fibrillation, the most frequent complication was heart failure with a lifetime risk of 42.9% in 2000-10 and 42.1% in 2011-22 (−0.8% (−3.8% to 2.2%)). Individuals with atrial fibrillation lost 14.4 years with no heart failure. The lifetime risks of stroke and of myocardial infarction after atrial fibrillation decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (−2.5% (−4.2% to −0.7%)) and from 13.7% to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 362 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free