ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Validation of a prediction model for early reconnection after cryoballoon ablation.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously developed an early reconnection/dormant conduction (ERC) prediction model for cryoballoon ablation to avoid a 30-min waiting period with adenosine infusion. We now aimed to validate this model based on time to isolation, number of unsuccessful cryo-applications, and nadir balloon temperature.
methodsConsecutive atrial fibrillation patients who underwent their first cryoballoon ablation in 2018-2019 at the Leiden University Medical Center were included. Model performance at the previous and at a new optimal cutoff value was determined.
resultsA total of 201 patients were included (85.57% paroxysmal AF, 139 male, median age 61 years (IQR 53-69)). ERC was found in 35 of 201 included patients (17.41%) and in 41 of 774 veins (5.30%). In the present study population, the previous cutoff value of - 6.7 provided a sensitivity of 37.84% (previously 70%) and a specificity of 89.07% (previously 86%). Shifting the cutoff value to - 7.2 in both study populations resulted in a sensitivity of 72.50% and 72.97% and a specificity of 78.22% and 78.63% in data from the previous and present study respectively. Negative predictive values were 96.55% and 98.11%. Applying the model on the 101 patients of the present study with all necessary data for all veins resulted in 43 out of 101 patients (43%) not requiring a 30-min waiting period with adenosine testing. Two patients (2%) with ERC would have been missed when applying the model.
conclusionsThe previously established ERC prediction model performs well, recommending its use for centers routinely using adenosine testing following PVI.
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.