Validation of a prediction model for early reconnection after cryoballoon ablation.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1007/s10840-024-01811-0
Kevin van Waaij, Fehmi Keçe, Marta de Riva, Reza Alizadeh Dehnavi, Adrianus P Wijnmaalen, Sebastiaan R D Piers, Bart J Mertens, Katja Zeppenfeld, Serge A Trines
{"title":"Validation of a prediction model for early reconnection after cryoballoon ablation.","authors":"Kevin van Waaij, Fehmi Keçe, Marta de Riva, Reza Alizadeh Dehnavi, Adrianus P Wijnmaalen, Sebastiaan R D Piers, Bart J Mertens, Katja Zeppenfeld, Serge A Trines","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01811-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The previously established ERC prediction model performs well, recommending its use for centers routinely using adenosine testing following PVI.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":"1623-1634"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11522115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01811-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We 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.

Methods: Consecutive 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.

Results: A 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.

Conclusions: The previously established ERC prediction model performs well, recommending its use for centers routinely using adenosine testing following PVI.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低温球囊消融后早期再连接预测模型的验证。
背景:我们之前开发了一种用于冷冻球囊消融的早期再连接/休眠传导(ERC)预测模型,以避免输注腺苷的 30 分钟等待期。我们现在的目标是根据隔离时间、低温应用失败次数和球囊最低温度验证该模型:纳入2018-2019年在莱顿大学医学中心接受首次冷冻球囊消融术的连续房颤患者。结果:共纳入 201 名患者(其中有 1 名患者是首次接受冷冻球囊消融术):共纳入 201 名患者(85.57% 为阵发性房颤,139 名男性,中位年龄 61 岁(IQR 53-69))。在纳入的 201 名患者中,有 35 人(17.41%)发现了 ERC,在 774 条静脉中,有 41 条(5.30%)发现了 ERC。在本研究人群中,以前的临界值为-6.7,灵敏度为 37.84%(以前为 70%),特异度为 89.07%(以前为 86%)。将这两项研究中的截断值改为-7.2后,前一项和本项研究数据的灵敏度分别为72.50%和72.97%,特异性分别为78.22%和78.63%。阴性预测值分别为 96.55% 和 98.11%。将该模型应用于本研究中101名患者的所有静脉的所有必要数据,结果101名患者中有43名患者(43%)不需要等待30分钟进行腺苷检测。应用该模型时,有两名(2%)ERC 患者会被漏诊:结论:之前建立的ERC预测模型表现良好,建议在PVI术后常规使用腺苷检测的中心使用该模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
320
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.
期刊最新文献
A new stepwise approach to minimize phrenic nerve injury during cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation. Catheter ablation in rate-controlled atrial fibrillation with severely reduced ejection fraction: intervention for irregularity-mediated cardiomyopathy. Efficacy, safety, and somatosensory comparison of pulsed-field ablation and thermal ablation: outcomes from a 2-year follow-up. Differential and synergistic effects of right and left atrial ganglionated plexi ablation in patients undergoing cardioneuroablation: results from the ELEGANCE multicenter study. Upstream targeting for the prevention of atrial fibrillation: Targeting Risk Interventions and Metformin for Atrial Fibrillation (TRIM-AF)-rationale and study design.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1