ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Impact of biological age versus chronological age on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: insights from the COOL-AF registry.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Because patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often exhibit heterogeneous risks that are not fully captured by traditional clinical factors, identifying a more accurate measure of physiological ageing could improve risk stratification and clinical management compared to chronological aging.This study aimed to determine the clinical outcome in relation to biological ageing in patients with AF. We used the data from the COOL-AF registry which is a multicentre nationwide registry of AF patients. The enrolment period was 2014-2017. Patients were followed-up for 3 years. Biological ageing was calculated from the Klemera-Doubal method (KDM) is a based on chronological age and blood chemistry and body function factors. The main outcome of this study was the composite of all-cause death, major bleeding, ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SSE), and heart failure. We included total of 3405 patients, with a mean chronological age of 67.8 ± 11.3 years, and 1424 (41.8%) were female. During the median follow-up duration of 35.9 (IQR 34.8, 36.0) months, the composite outcomes, death, major bleeding, SSE, and heart failure developed in 726 (21.3%), 380 (11.2%), 199 (5.8%), 134 (3.9%), and 247 (7.3%) patients, respectively. Restricted cubic spline analysis showed that KDM bioage had higher hazard ratios compared to chronological age, with the adjusted Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) of Quartile 4 (Q4) KDM for the composite outcomes, death, major bleeding, SSE, and heart failure were 2.11 (1.82-2.45), 2.53 (2.06-3.11), 2.12 (1.60-2.83), 1.96 (1.37-2.78), and 1.83 (1.42-2.38), respectively (all p < 0.001). In conclusion, KDM bioage is an independent predictor for clinical outcome and performs better than chronological age. These findings highlight the clinical value of incorporating biological ageing metrics into AF risk assessment models and suggest that KDM bioage may enhance personalized prognostication beyond conventional age-based evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41525015What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.