The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dengue: an escalating problem
Open accessAbstract
The short-term impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on cardiac surgery hospitalizations has been previously reported in cohorts of various sizes, but results have been variable. Using the 2005–2014 National Inpatient Sample, we identified all adult hospitalizations for cardiac surgery using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification as any procedure code and AF as any diagnosis code. We estimated the impact of AF on inpatient mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost of hospitalization using survey-weighted, multivariable logistic, accelerated failure-time log-normal, and log-transformed linear regressions, respectively. Additionally, we exact-matched AF to non-AF hospitalizations on various confounders for the same outcomes. A total of 1,269,414 hospitalizations were noted for cardiac surgery during the study period. Coexistent AF was found in 44.9% of these hospitalizations. Overall mean age was 65.6 years, 40.9% were female, mean LOS was 11.6 days, and inpatient mortality was 4.5%. Stroke rate was lower in AF hospitalizations (1.8% vs 2.1%, p<0.001). Mortality was lower in the AF (3.9%) versus the non-AF (5%) group (exact-matched OR or emOR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80, p<0.001; 987 matched pairs, n=2423), with similar results after procedural stratification: isolated valve replacement/repair (emOR=0.38, p<0.001), isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (emOR=0.33, p<0.001), and CABG with valve replacement/repair (emOR=0.55, p<0.001). A 12% increase was seen in LOS in the AF subgroup (exact-matched time ratio=1.12, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.14, p<0.001) among hospitalizations which underwent valve replacement/repair with or without CABG. Hospitalizations for cardiac surgery which had coexistent AF were found to have lower inpatient mortality risk and stroke prevalence but higher LOS and hospitalization costs compared with hospitalizations without AF.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Global spread of dengue virus types: mapping the 70 year history
Messina, J. P., Brady, O. J., Scott, T. W., Zou, C., Pigott, D. M., Duda, K. A., Bhatt, S., Katzelnick, L., Howes, R. E., Battle, K. E., et al. (2014) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2013.12.011 · Cited by 716
SEROTYPE-SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF DENGUE
BALMASEDA, A., HAMMOND, S. N., PÉREZ, L., TELLEZ, Y., SABORÍO, S. I., MERCADO, J. C., CUADRA, R., ROCHA, J., PÉREZ, M. A., SILVA, S., et al. (2006) · The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2006.74.449 · Cited by 299
Heintze, C., Garrido, M. V., & Kroeger, A. (2007) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.1016/j.trstmh.2006.08.007 · Cited by 238
Community involvement in dengue vector control: cluster randomised trial
Vanlerberghe, V, Toledo, M. E., Rodriguez, M., Gomez, D., Baly, A., Benitez, J. R., & Van der Stuyft, P. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b1959 · Cited by 160
(2004) · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibbons, R. V., & Vaughn, D. W.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-06-29
- Volume
- 324
- Issue
- 7353
- Pages
- 1563-1566
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1990086201
- Cited by
- 783
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dengue: an escalating problem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.324.7353.1563
- The paper
- Gibbons, R. V., & Vaughn, D. W. (2002). Dengue: an escalating problem. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7353.1563
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.