You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 12
  • Pharmacological interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a network meta-analysis protocol

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Cardiovascular medicine
Protocol
Pharmacological interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a network meta-analysis protocol
  1. Xiaoqin Wang1,2,3,
  2. Liang Yao4,
  3. Long Ge1,2,3,
  4. Lun Li5,
  5. Fuxiang Liang6,
  6. Qi Zhou6,
  7. Yaolong Chen1,2,3,
  8. Yongfeng Wang7,
  9. Kehu Yang1,2,3
  1. 1 Evidence Based Medicine Centre, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
  2. 2 Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
  3. 3 Chinese GRADE Centre, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
  4. 4 Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine Institute of the People’s Hospital of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
  5. 5 Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Lanzhou, China
  6. 6 The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
  7. 7 Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Yongfeng Wang; wangyongfeng_2020{at}163.com and Professor Kehu Yang; kehuyangebm2006{at}126.com

Abstract

Introduction Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication following cardiac surgery, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to compare and evaluate different pharmacological interventions for preventing POAF. This study aimed to explore the effect of different pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis against POAF after cardiac surgery using network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods and analysis A systematic search will be performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, systematic reviews, meta-analyses or NMA of different pharmacological interventions for POAF. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0, and use GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. Standard pairwise meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis will be used to compare the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions.

Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this NMA and trial sequential analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Protocol registration number CRD42017067492.

  • postoperative atrial fibrillation (poaf)
  • network meta-analysis
  • pharmacological interventions
  • prevention

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018544

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • To the best of our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis to comprehensively explore and compare the effect of different pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis against POAF after cardiac surgery.

    • The results of this network meta-analysis will help clinicians and patients to select appropriate prophylaxis methods.

    • Our results will be limited by both the quantity and quality of the trials available for this review.

    Introduction

    Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication following cardiac surgery, with an incidence of 15–50%1–5 depending on the cardiac surgical procedure, patient population and exposure to prophylactic interventions. The rate reported in 2009 was even higher in valve surgery (64%).6 POAF normally occurs between days 2 and 4 after surgery, with the maximum incidence seen on postoperative day 2, with 80% and 94% of patients suffering POAF having it by day 4 and by the end of day 6, respectively.7 Furthermore, a substantial impact of POAF on hospital resources was observed. It was estimated that POAF lengthened hospital stay by 4.9 days, with an extra cost of $10 000–11 500 in hospital stay in the USA.7

    In addition to directly causing discomfort and leading to haemodynamic compromise, this complication is associated with major adverse consequences, including an increased rate of death, postoperative stroke and other complications,8–10 hospitalisations and inflated costs.11 12 Contemporary studies show that 20–30% of patients with an ischaemic stroke have atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosed before, during or after the initial event. Cognitive impairment,13–15 decreased quality of life16 17 and depressed mood18 are common in AF patients, and between 10% and 40% of AF patients are hospitalised each year.19 20

    Increasing research has assessed various interventions for preventing POAF21 based on the multifactorial aetiology, including pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions (eg, bi-atrial pacing). Pharmacological interventions aim to reduce the dispersion of atrial refractoriness, suppress activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, control ectopic foci automaticity, and reduce oxidative stress and inflammation. The most commonly used pharmacological therapies in clinical practice include beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, digoxin, sotalol and magnesium.5 22 23 However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding best practices for POAF21 management, which has contributed to major variations in practices.1 3 24 25

    Although several meta-analyses have studied various proposed prophylactic interventions for preventing POAF, all of them conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of one intervention with controls, or different durations and doses.22 26–36 Traditional pairwise meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are used to obtain an overall estimate of treatment effect of one intervention relative to the control. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used to evaluate healthcare interventions, and the advantage of NMA over pairwise meta-analysis is that it allows indirect comparisons of multiple interventions and rank ordering of the interventions that have not been studied in a head to head fashion.37

    Also, attention has been paid to developing NMA for AF prevention. Harenberg et al conducted an NMA for three medicines (dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban) in the treatment of patients with AF.38 Fu et al 39 and Lip et al 40 investigated direct oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular AF. Chatterjee et al studied the timing and route of amiodarone for POAF prevention. In early 2017, Zhao et al published an NMA of AF prevention on general thoracic surgery, in which research on patients undergoing cardiac surgery were excluded.41 But no NMA has comprehensively compared treatments for POAF prevention in patients undergoing cardiac surgical procedures.

    This study is a comprehensive NMA on different pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis against POAF after cardiac surgery.

    Objective

    To comprehensively explore the effect of different pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis against POAF after cardiac surgery using NMA.

    Methods and analysis

    Design

    A Bayesian NMA will be carried out in this study.

    Information source

    A systematic search will be performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Two librarians (LL and JHT) will be consulted to work on the search strategy. We will use the following search terms: atrial fibrillation, heart fibrillation, atrial fibrillation, cardiac surgery and heart surgery. No limitation of language or publication date will be set during the search process. Our detailed search strategy for the different databases is outlined in box.

    Box

    Detailed search strategy

    Pubmed

    #1. “Atrial Flutter” [Mesh]

    #2. “Arrhythmias, Cardiac” [Mesh]

    #3. “Atrial Fibrillation” [Mesh]

    #4. AF [Title/Abstract]

    #5. “atrium fibrillation” [Title/Abstract]

    #6. “atrial flutter” [Title/Abstract]

    #7. “atrial arrhythmia” [Title/Abstract]

    #8. “heart fibrillation” [Title/Abstract]

    #9. “heart atrium fibrillation” [Title/Abstract]

    #10. “Thoracic Surgery” [Mesh]

    #11. “cardiac surgery” [Title/Abstract] a

    #12. “cardiac surgical” [Title/Abstract]

    #13. “heart surgery” [Title/Abstract]

    #14. “heart surgical” [Title/Abstract]

    #15. “cardiac surgery procedures” [Title/Abstract]

    #16. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9

    #17. #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15

    #18. #16 and #17

    The Cochrane Library

    #1. MeSH descriptor: [Atrial Fibrillation] explode all trees

    #2. MeSH descriptor: [Atrial Flutter] explode all trees

    #3. MeSH descriptor: [Arrhythmias, Cardiac] explode all trees

    #4. atrium fibrillation:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #5. atrial flutter:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #6. atrial arrhythmia:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #7. atrial flutter:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #8. heart fibrillation:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #9. heart atrium fibrillation:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #10. MeSH descriptor: (Thoracic Surgery) explode all trees

    #11. heart surgery:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #12. heart surgical:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #13. cardiac surgical:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #14. cardiac surgery procedures:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)

    #15. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9

    #16. #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14

    #17. #15 and #16

    Embase

    #1. ‘atrial fibrillation’/exp

    #2. ‘heart fibrillation’/exp

    #3. ‘heart fibrillation’:ab,ti

    #4. ‘atrial arrhythmia’:ab,ti

    #5. ‘atrial flutter’:ab,ti

    #6. ‘heart atrium fibrillation’:ab,ti

    #7. ‘heart surgery’/exp

    #8. ‘cardiac surgery’:ab,ti

    #9. ‘heart surgery’:ab,ti

    #10. ‘heart surgical’:ab,ti

    #11. ‘cardiac surgical’:ab,ti

    #12. ‘cardiac surgery procedures’:ab,ti

    #13. #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6

    #14. #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12

    #15. #13 AND #14

    #16. #15 AND[embase]/lim NOT [medline]/lim

    Eligibility criteria

    Patients: adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing heart surgery, such as coronary artery bypass graft surgery, valvular surgery, or both, with no history of chronic AF.

    Study designs: RCTs, systematic reviews, meta-analyses or NMA will be included for their references.

    Interventions: any pharmacological intervention aimed at preventing POAF after cardiac surgery.

    Outcomes: primary outcome is incidence of AF, including inhospital AF, and AF up to 2 weeks after discharge; secondary outcomes are incidence of stroke (measured within the same period as AF) or cerebrovascular accident, mortality rate, length of hospital stay, cost of treatment during hospital stay and adverse events.

    Other criteria: we will include RCTs published in English. There will be no limitations on duration of study follow-up, year of publication or publication status.

    Study records

    ENDNOTE X7 literature management software will be used to screen and manage search records, while a standard data abstraction form will be developed with Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Washington, USA). Pilot tests will be performed for literature screening and data extraction, and remarks will be made to ensure high inter-rater reliability among the reviewers.

    Study eligibility will be assessed in two stages. First, pairs of reviewers will independently examine the titles and abstracts in ENDNOTE to identify related studies. Then, each full text article from the screening stage will be obtained and evaluated. Excluded trials and the reasons will be recorded and any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or consultation with an independent third adjudicator.

    Data extraction

    A rigorous process will be applied to extract the data. To start, the initial data extraction form will be created. Then, a random sample of 3–5 included RCTs will be pilot tested. If necessary, the form will be revised to complete the final data extraction. Finally, two independent reviewers will extract the data of interest, and conflicts will be resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. The following descriptive data from eligible studies will be abstracted: country of origin, year of publication, type of surgery, interventions, treatment schema and doses, number of participants, patient characteristics, background therapies, type of surgery, outcomes measurement or monitoring, length of follow-up, definition of primary outcome and end points of AF, stroke, mortality, length of stay and cost.

    Assessment of risk of bias of included studies

    Two reviewers will evaluate the risk of bias of the selected RCTs according to the criteria and technique proposed in the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0,42 which includes random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias) and other bias. Each study will be assigned a level of risk of bias (high risk, unclear risk, low risk) for each item. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or consultation with an independent third adjudicator.

    Geometry of the network

    A network plot will be drawn to present the geometry of the network of comparisons across trials to ensure a NMA is feasible. Trials will be excluded if they are not connected by interventions. Nodes in network geometry represent different interventions and edges represent head to head comparisons. The size of nodes and thickness of edges are associated with sample sizes and numbers of RCTs, respectively.

    Pairwise meta analysis

    Pairwise meta analyses will be performed using Review Manager 5.3.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Denmark). OR with 95% CI will be used for incidence of AF or supraventricular tachycardia, incidence of stroke or cerebrovascular accident, and mortality rate. Mean differences (MDs) or standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CI will be used for length of hospital stay and cost of treatment during hospital stay. We will assess clinical and methodological heterogeneity through examination of the characteristics of the included trials. Heterogeneity across trials will be assessed by c2 and I2 statistics. If the P value is ≥0.1 and I2 ≤50%, which suggests there is no statistical heterogeneity, then the Mantel–Haenszel fixed effects model will be employed. If the P value is <0.1 and I2 >50%, we will explore sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. If no clinical heterogeneity is identified, the Mantel–Haenszel random effects model will be used.42 Publication bias will be examined using Begg’s and Egger’s funnel plot method when applicable.43 44 In addition, the contour-enhanced funnel plot will be obtained as an aid to distinguish asymmetry due to publication bias.45

    Network meta-analysis

    We will perform Bayesian NMAs with the package ‘gemtc’ V.0.8.1 of R-3.3.2 software46 to compare the effects of different prophylactic agents. The Markov Chains Monte Carlo sampler will be used to generate samples. A total of 5000 simulations for each chain will be set as the ‘burn-in’ period. Then, posterior summaries will be based on 100 000 subsequent simulations. Model convergence will be assessed using the Brooks–Gelman–Rubin plots method.47 Global heterogeneity will be assessed on the bias of the magnitude of heterogeneity variance parameter (I2 or τ2) estimated from the NMA models using the mtc.anohe command of the ‘gemtc’ package. A node splitting method will be used to examine the inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons when a loop connecting three arms exists.48 The ranking probabilities for all treatments will be estimated, and a treatment hierarchy using the probability of being the best treatment can be obtained. This process will be performed using the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).49 SUCRA values are expressed as percentages—100% for the best treatment, 0% for the worst treatment.49 We will also try to use the frequentist approach to compare stability if necessary.50 51

    Assessment of the quality of evidence

    The quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) using four levels—high quality, moderate quality, low quality and very low quality.52 This process will be performed with the online guideline development tool (GDT, http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/).

    Ethics and dissemination

    Publication plan

    This protocol has been registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). The procedures of NMA will be conducted and reported according to the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analyses. The results of this NMA and trial sequential analyses (TSA) will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for publication.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      2. Echahidi N ,
      3. Pibarot P ,
      4. O’Hara G , et al
      . Mechanisms, prevention, and treatment of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:793–801.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.043
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    2. 2.↵
      2. Jongnarangsin K ,
      3. Oral H
      . Postoperative atrial fibrillation. Cardiol Clin 2009;27:69–78.doi:10.1016/j.ccl.2008.09.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. 3.↵
      2. Nair SG
      . Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Ann Card Anaesth 2010;13:196–205.doi:10.4103/0971-9784.69047
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. 4.↵
      2. Chelazzi C ,
      3. Villa G ,
      4. De Gaudio AR , et al
      . Postoperative atrial fibrillation. ISRN Cardiol 2011;2011:1–10.doi:10.5402/2011/203179
      OpenUrl
    5. 5.↵
      2. Raiten JM ,
      3. Ghadimi K ,
      4. Augoustides JG , et al
      . Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: clinical update on mechanisms and prophylactic strategies. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2015;29:806–16.doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2015.01.001
      OpenUrl
    6. 6.↵
      2. Rho RW
      . The management of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Heart 2009;95:422–9.doi:10.1136/hrt.2007.132795
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. 7.↵
      2. Aranki SF ,
      3. Shaw DP ,
      4. Adams DH , et al
      . Predictors of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery surgery. Current trends and impact on hospital resources. Circulation 1996;94:390–7.doi:10.1161/01.CIR.94.3.390
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. 8.↵
      2. Almassi GH ,
      3. Schowalter T ,
      4. Nicolosi AC , et al
      . Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a major morbid event? Ann Surg 1997;226:501.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. 9.↵
      2. Reed GL ,
      3. Singer DE ,
      4. Picard EH , et al
      . Stroke following coronary-artery bypass surgery. A case-control estimate of the risk from carotid bruits. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1246–50.doi:10.1056/NEJM198811103191903
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    10. 10.↵
      2. Creswell LL ,
      3. Schuessler RB ,
      4. Rosenbloom M , et al
      . Hazards of postoperative atrial arrhythmias. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:539–49.doi:10.1016/0003-4975(93)90894-N
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. 11.↵
      2. Mathew JP ,
      3. Parks R ,
      4. Savino JS , et al
      . Atrial fibrillation following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: predictors, outcomes, and resource utilization. JAMA 1996;276:300–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. 12.↵
      2. Mathew JP ,
      3. Fontes ML ,
      4. Tudor IC , et al
      . A multicenter risk index for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. JAMA 2004;291:1720–9.doi:10.1001/jama.291.14.1720
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. 13.↵
      2. Ott A ,
      3. Breteler MM ,
      4. de Bruyne MC , et al
      . Atrial fibrillation and dementia in a population-based study. The Rotterdam Study. Stroke 1997;28:316–21.doi:10.1161/01.STR.28.2.316
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. 14.↵
      2. Knecht S ,
      3. Oelschläger C ,
      4. Duning T , et al
      . Atrial fibrillation in stroke-free patients is associated with memory impairment and hippocampal atrophy. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2125–32.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn341
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. 15.↵
      2. Ball J ,
      3. Carrington MJ ,
      4. Stewart S
      . Mild cognitive impairment in high-risk patients with chronic atrial fibrillation: a forgotten component of clinical management? Heart 2013;99:542–7.doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303182
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. 16.↵
      2. Marzona I ,
      3. O’Donnell M ,
      4. Teo K , et al
      . Increased risk of cognitive and functional decline in patients with atrial fibrillation: results of the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND studies. CMAJ 2012;184:E329–36.doi:10.1503/cmaj.111173
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. 17.↵
      2. Thrall G ,
      3. Lane D ,
      4. Carroll D , et al
      . Quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Am J Med 2006;119:448.e1–448.e19.doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.057
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. 18.↵
      2. von Eisenhart Rothe A ,
      3. Hutt F ,
      4. Baumert J , et al
      . Depressed mood amplifies heart-related symptoms in persistent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients: a longitudinal analysis-data from the German Competence Network on Atrial Fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1354–62.doi:10.1093/europace/euv018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. 19.↵
      2. Steinberg BA ,
      3. Kim S ,
      4. Fonarow GC , et al
      . Drivers of hospitalization for patients with atrial fibrillation: Results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). Am Heart J 2014;167:735–42.doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2014.02.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. 20.↵
      2. Kirchhof P ,
      3. Schmalowsky J ,
      4. Pittrow D , et al
      . Management of patients with atrial fibrillation by primary-care physicians in Germany: 1-year results of the ATRIUM registry. Clin Cardiol 2014;37:277–84.doi:10.1002/clc.22272
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. 21.↵
      2. Chung MK
      . Cardiac surgery: postoperative arrhythmias. Crit Care Med 2000;28(Suppl):N136–44.doi:10.1097/00003246-200010001-00005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. 22.↵
      2. Arsenault KA ,
      3. Yusuf AM ,
      4. Crystal E , et al
      . Interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:1201–6.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003611.pub3
      OpenUrl
    23. 23.↵
      2. Raiten J ,
      3. Patel PA ,
      4. Gutsche J
      . Management of postoperative atrial fibrillation in cardiac surgery patients. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2015;19:122–9.doi:10.1177/1089253214551283
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 24.↵
      2. Mitchell LB ,
      3. Crystal E ,
      4. Heilbron B , et al
      . Atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol 2005;21(Suppl B):45B.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    25. 25.↵
      2. Gillinov AM ,
      3. Bagiella E ,
      4. Moskowitz AJ , et al
      . Rate control versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1911–21.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. 26.↵
      2. Li L ,
      3. Ai Q ,
      4. Lin L , et al
      . Efficacy and safety of landiolol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:10265–73.
      OpenUrl
    27. 27.↵
      2. Liu S ,
      3. Bian C ,
      4. Zhang Y , et al
      . Landiolol hydrochloride for prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014;37:691–6.doi:10.1111/pace.12379
      OpenUrl
    28. 28.↵
      2. Tsu LV ,
      3. Lee S
      . Use of ranolazine in the prevention and treatment of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Ann Pharmacother 2014;48:633–7.doi:10.1177/1060028014523257
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. 29.↵
      2. Chen WT ,
      3. Krishnan GM ,
      4. Sood N , et al
      . Effect of statins on atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a duration- and dose-response meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;140:364–72.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.02.042
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. 30.↵
      2. Patti G ,
      3. Bennett R ,
      4. Seshasai SR , et al
      . Statin pretreatment and risk of in-hospital atrial fibrillation among patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a collaborative meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials. Europace 2015;17:855–63.doi:10.1093/europace/euv001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. 31.↵
      2. Liakopoulos OJ ,
      3. Choi YH ,
      4. Kuhn EW , et al
      . Statins for prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a systematic literature review. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;138:678–86.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.03.054
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. 32.↵
      2. Bagshaw SM ,
      3. Galbraith PD ,
      4. Mitchell LB , et al
      . Prophylactic amiodarone for prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:1927–37.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.06.032
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. 33.↵
      2. de Frutos F ,
      3. Gea A ,
      4. Hernandez-Estefania R , et al
      . Prophylactic treatment with coenzyme Q10 in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: could an antioxidant reduce complications? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015;20:254–9.doi:10.1093/icvts/ivu334
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. 34.↵
      2. Trivedi C ,
      3. Sadadia M
      . Colchicine in prevention of atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Pharmacol 2014;46:590–5.doi:10.4103/0253-7613.144905
      OpenUrl
    35. 35.↵
      2. Polymeropoulos E ,
      3. Bagos P ,
      4. Papadimitriou M , et al
      . Vitamin C for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Adv Pharm Bull 2016;6:243–50.doi:10.15171/apb.2016.033
      OpenUrl
    36. 36.↵
      2. Cook RC ,
      3. Yamashita MH ,
      4. Kearns M , et al
      . Prophylactic magnesium does not prevent atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;95:533–41.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.09.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. 37.↵
      2. Jansen JP ,
      3. Naci H
      . Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med 2013;11:159.doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-159
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. 38.↵
      2. Harenberg J ,
      3. Marx S ,
      4. Diener HC , et al
      . Comparison of efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation using network meta-analysis. Int Angiol 2012;31:330.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. 39.↵
      2. Fu W ,
      3. Guo H ,
      4. Guo J , et al
      . Relative efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation by network meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Med 2014;15:873–9.doi:10.2459/JCM.0000000000000206
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    40. 40.↵
      2. Lip GY ,
      3. Mitchell SA ,
      4. Liu X , et al
      . Relative efficacy and safety of non-Vitamin K oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Network meta-analysis comparing apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban in three patient subgroups. Int J Cardiol 2016;204:88–94.doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.11.084
      OpenUrl
    41. 41.↵
      2. Zhao BC ,
      3. Huang TY ,
      4. Deng QW , et al
      . Prophylaxis against atrial fibrillation after general thoracic surgery: Trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Chest 2017;151:149.doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.08.1476
    42. 42.↵
      2. Higgins JPT GS
      . Cochrance handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0[EB/OL]: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
    43. 43.↵
      2. Begg CB ,
      3. Mazumdar M
      . Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088.doi:10.2307/2533446
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    44. 44.↵
      2. Egger M ,
      3. Davey Smith G ,
      4. Schneider M , et al
      . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    45. 45.↵
      2. Peters JL ,
      3. Sutton AJ ,
      4. Jones DR , et al
      . Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:991–6.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. 46.↵
      2. van Valkenhoef G ,
      3. Kuiper J
      . gemtc: network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods. https://rdrr.io/cran/gemtc/
    47. 47.↵
      2. Wu HY ,
      3. Huang JW ,
      4. Lin HJ , et al
      . Comparative effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system blockers and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetes: systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis. BMJ 2013;347:f6008.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    48. 48.↵
      2. Lu G ,
      3. Ades AE
      . Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23:3105–24.doi:10.1002/sim.1875
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    49. 49.↵
      2. Salanti G ,
      3. Ades AE ,
      4. Ioannidis JP
      . Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:163–71.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. 50.↵
      2. Hoaglin DC ,
      3. Hawkins N ,
      4. Jansen JP , et al
      . Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 2011;14:429–37.doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. 51.↵
      Comparing bayesian and frequentist approaches for network meta-analysis: An empirical study. https://www.globalevidencesummit.org/abstracts/comparing-bayesian-and-frequentist-approaches-network-meta-analysis-empirical-study (accessed 17 Sep 2017).
    52. 52.↵
      2. Puhan MA ,
      3. Schünemann HJ ,
      4. Murad MH , et al
      . A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;349:g5630.doi:10.1136/bmj.g5630
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • XQW and LY contributed equally.

    • Contributors Conception and design of research: XW, YL, LG and KY. Tested the feasibility of the study: LL, FL, QZ, Y-LC and YW. Wrote the manuscript: XW. All authors approved the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.