ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Automatic algorithmic driven monitoring of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia ablation to improve procedural safety.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During slow pathway modification for atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia, heart block may occur if ablation cannot be stopped in time in response to high risk electrogram features (HREF). Objectives: To develop an automatic algorithm to monitor HREF and terminate ablation earlier than human reaction. Methods: Digital electrogram data from 332 ablation runs from February 2020 to June 2022 were included. They were divided into training and validation sets which contained 126 and 206 ablation runs respectively. HREF in training set was measured. Then a program was developed with cutoff values decided from training set to capture all these HREF. Simulation ablation videos were rendered using validation set electrogram data. The videos were played to three independent electrophysiologists who each determined when to stop ablation. Timing of ablation termination, sensitivity, and specificity were compared between human and program. Results: Reasons for ablation termination in the training set include short AA time, short VV time, AV block and VA block. Cutoffs for the program were set to maximize program sensitivity. Sensitivity and specificity for the program in the validation set were 95.2% and 91.1% respectively, which were comparable to that of human performance at 93.5% and 95.4%. If HREF were recognized by both human and program, ablations were terminated earlier by the program 90.2% of times, by a median of 574 ms (interquartile range 412-807 ms, Conclusion: Algorithmic-driven monitoring of slow pathway modification can supplement human judgement to improve ablation safety.
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.