ArticlePloS one2014
How often should we monitor for reliable detection of atrial fibrillation recurrence? Efficiency considerations and implications for study design.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00806689 (Full Disclosure Observational Cardiac Rhythm Documentation Follow-up After Surgical Atrial Fibrillation Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Full Disclosure Observational Cardiac Rhythm Documentation Follow-up After Surgical Atrial Fibrillation Therapy
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phased multipolar radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation is as effective and safe as conventional irrigated point-to-point ablation. A prospective randomised 1-year implantable cardiac monitoring device follow-up trial.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2015Trial
- Ventricular arrhythmia events in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without a defibrillator for primary prevention.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Approaches to Detect Atrial Fibrillation Using Photoplethysmographic Signals: Algorithms Development Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Article
- Redefining the role of biomarkers in heart failure trials: expert consensus document.Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
- Detecting and monitoring arrhythmia recurrence following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in physiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence is unpredictable in terms of onset and duration, current intermittent rhythm monitoring (IRM) diagnostic modalities are short-termed and discontinuous. The aim of the present study was to investigate the necessary IRM frequency required to reliably detect recurrence of various AF recurrence patterns.
methodsThe rhythm histories of 647 patients (mean AF burden: 12 ± 22% of monitored time; 687 patient-years) with implantable continuous monitoring devices were reconstructed and analyzed. With the use of computationally intensive simulation, we evaluated the necessary IRM frequency to reliably detect AF recurrence of various AF phenotypes using IRM of various durations.
resultsThe IRM frequency required for reliable AF detection depends on the amount and temporal aggregation of the AF recurrence (p<0.0001) as well as the duration of the IRM (p<0.001). Reliable detection (>95% sensitivity) of AF recurrence required higher IRM frequencies (>12 24-hour; >6 7-day; >4 14-day; >3 30-day IRM per year; p<0.0001) than currently recommended. Lower IRM frequencies will under-detect AF recurrence and introduce significant bias in the evaluation of therapeutic interventions. More frequent but of shorter duration, IRMs (24-hour) are significantly more time effective (sensitivity per monitored time) than a fewer number of longer IRM durations (p<0.0001).
conclusionsReliable AF recurrence detection requires higher IRM frequencies than currently recommended. Current IRM frequency recommendations will fail to diagnose a significant proportion of patients. Shorter duration but more frequent IRM strategies are significantly more efficient than longer IRM durations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: Unique identifier: NCT00806689.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.