ArticlePloS one2024
Does radiofrequency ablation procedural data improve the accuracy of identifying atrial fibrillation recurrence?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning and deep learning predictive models for prognosis in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Beyond Clinical Factors: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence and Multimodal Cardiac Imaging to Predict Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post-Catheter Ablation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) using the CARTO 3D mapping system is a common approach for pulmonary vein isolation to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). Linkage between CARTO procedural data and patients' electronical health records (EHR) provides an opportunity to identify the ablation-related parameters that would predict AF recurrence. The objective of this study is to assess the incremental accuracy of RFA procedural data to predict post-ablation AF recurrence using machine learning model. Procedural data generated during RFA procedure were downloaded from CARTONET and linked to deidentified Mercy Health EHR data. Data were divided into train (70%) and test (30%) data for model development and validation. Automate machine learning (AutoML) was used to predict 1 year AF recurrence, defined as a composite of repeat ablation, electrical cardioversion, and AF hospitalization. At first, AutoML model only included Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics. Second, an AutoML model with procedural variables and demographical/clinical variables was developed. Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to compare model performances using test data. Among 306 patients, 67 (21.9%) patients experienced 1-year AF recurrence. AUROC increased from 0.66 to 0.78 after adding procedural data in the AutoML model based on test data. For patients with AF recurrence, NRI was 32% for model with procedural data. Nine of 10 important predictive features were CARTO procedural data. From CARTO procedural data, patients with lower contact force in right inferior site, long ablation duration, and low number of left inferior and right roof lesions had a higher risk of AF recurrence. Patients with persistent AF were more likely to have AF recurrence. The machine learning model with procedural data better predicted 1-year AF recurrence than the model without procedural data. The model could be used for identification of patients with high risk of AF recurrence post ablation.
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.