ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Development and validation of a predictive model for left ventricular diastolic improvement following catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation with diastolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The impact of catheter ablation on left ventricular diastolic function in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) remains poorly characterised. There are no robust tools available to predict improvement in LVDD post-ablation. Methods: The retrospective study enrolled 141 patients diagnosed with AF and LVDD undergoing ablation. LVDD improvement was defined as a reduction of at least one grade in LVDD grade (LVDDG) within 12 ± 3 months after ablation. The predictive model was constructed using a logistic regression with 10-fold validation with stratification. The performance of the model was evaluated using ROC analysis (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). An exploratory sensitivity analysis applying the updated 2025 ASE recommendations for LVDD assessment was additionally performed. Results: 49.6% (70/141) of patients showed improvement in LVDD. The predictive model incorporated four independent predictors: higher baseline LVDDG, lower left ventricular mass index (LVMI), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and absence of a history of stroke. The AUC was 0.786 (95% CI 0.760-0.809) in the training cohort and 0.756 (95% CI: 0.677-0.835) in the validation cohort, with acceptable calibration and net clinical benefit across a restricted range of threshold probabilities. In the sensitivity analysis using the redefined LVDD endpoint, discrimination remained comparable (AUC 0.783, 95% CI 0.703-0.856). Conclusions: A novel model integrating LVDDG, LVMI, LVEF and stroke history effectively predicts post-ablation LVDD improvement in AF patients with LVDD, aiding patient selection for ablation and guiding adjunctive therapies.
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.