Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38682165›Full record

ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2024

Validation of a machine learning algorithm to identify pulmonary vein isolation during ablation procedures for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: results of the PVISION study.

Jan De Pooter, Liesbeth Timmers, Serge Boveda, Stephane Combes, Sebastien Knecht, Alexandre Almorad, Carlos De Asmundis, Mattias Duytschaever

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. EHRA perspective on the digital data revolution in arrhythmia management: insights from the association's annual summit.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jan De PooterHeart Center, UZ Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3135-8676
Liesbeth TimmersHeart Center, UZ Ghent, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3560-2154
Serge BovedaClinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1280-7042
Stephane CombesClinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0040-676X
Sebastien KnechtAZ Sint-Jan, Brugge, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4500-0146
Alexandre AlmoradUZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9743-1661
Carlos De AsmundisUZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9351-0760
Mattias DuytschaeverAZ Sint-Jan, Brugge, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8451-0013

Funding

CathVision ApSECGenius
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of ablation for atrial fibrillation. Confirmation of PVI can be challenging due to the presence of far-field electrograms (EGMs) and sometimes requires additional pacing manoeuvres or mapping. This prospective multicentre study assessed the agreement between a previously trained automated algorithm designed to determine vein isolation status with expert opinion in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS AND

resultsConsecutive patients scheduled for PVI were recruited at four centres. The ECGenius electrophysiology (EP) recording system (CathVision ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark) was connected in parallel with the existing system in the laboratory. Electrograms from a circular mapping catheter were annotated during sinus rhythm at baseline pre-ablation, time of isolation, and post-ablation. The ground truth for isolation status was based on operator opinion. The algorithm was applied to the collected PV signals off-line and compared with expert opinion. The primary endpoint was a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 80%. Overall, 498 EGMs (248 at baseline and 250 at PVI) with 5473 individual PV beats from 89 patients (32 females, 62 ± 12 years) were analysed. The algorithm performance reached an area under the curve (AUC) of 92% and met the primary study endpoint with a sensitivity and specificity of 86 and 87%, respectively (P = 0.005; P = 0.004). The algorithm had an accuracy rate of 87% in classifying the time of isolation.

conclusionThis study validated an automated algorithm using machine learning to assess the isolation status of pulmonary veins in patients undergoing PVI with different ablation modalities. The algorithm reached an AUC of 92%, with both sensitivity and specificity exceeding the primary study endpoints.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationCatheter AblationElectrophysiologic Techniques, CardiacMachine LearningPulmonary VeinsAction PotentialsAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsAtrial fibrillationMachine learningPulmonary vein isolation

Identifiers

PMID38682165
PMCPMC11089576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.