MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of Monitoring Strategy on Assessment of Ablation Success and Postablation Atrial Fibrillation Burden Assessment: Implications for Practice and Clinical Trial Design

2021· article· en· W3215621588 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationClinical trialAblationClinical PracticeCatheter ablationGold standard (test)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Various noninvasive intermittent rhythm monitoring strategies have been used to assess arrhythmia recurrences in trials evaluating pharmacological and invasive therapeutic interventions for atrial fibrillation (AF). We determined whether a frequency and duration of noninvasive rhythm monitoring could be identified that accurately detects arrhythmia recurrences and approximates the AF burden derived from continuous monitoring using an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM). Methods: The rhythm history of 346 patients enrolled in the CIRCA-DOSE trial (Cryoballoon Versus Contact-Force Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation) was reconstructed. Using computer simulations, we evaluated event-free survival, sensitivity, negative predictive value, and AF burden of a range of noninvasive monitoring strategies, including those used in contemporary AF ablation trials. Results: A total of 126 290 monitoring days were included in the analysis. At 12 months, 164 patients experienced atrial arrhythmia recurrence as documented by the ICM (1-year event-free survival, 52.6%). Most noninvasive monitoring strategies used in AF ablation trials had poor sensitivity for detecting arrhythmia recurrence. Sensitivity increased with the intensity of monitoring, with serial (3) short-duration monitors (24-/48-hour ECG monitors) missing a substantial proportion of recurrences (sensitivity, 15.8% [95% CI, 8.9%–20.7%] and 24.5% [95% CI, 16.2%–30.6%], respectively). Serial (3) longer-term monitors (14-day ECG monitors) more closely approximated the gold standard ICM (sensitivity, 64.6% [95% CI, 53.6%–74.3%]). AF burden derived from short-duration monitors significantly overestimated the true AF burden in patients with recurrences. Increasing monitoring duration resulted in improved correlation and concordance between noninvasive estimates of the invasive AF burden ( R 2 = 0.85 and interclass correlation coefficient = 0.91 for serial [3] 14-day ECG monitors versus ICM). Conclusions: The observed rate of postablation atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence is highly dependent on the arrhythmia monitoring strategy employed. Between-trial discrepancies in outcomes may reflect different monitoring protocols. On the basis of measures of agreement, serial long-term (7–14 day) intermittent monitors accumulating at least 28 days of annual monitoring provide estimates of AF burden comparable with ICM. However, ICMs outperform intermittent monitoring for arrhythmia detection, and should be considered the gold standard for clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01913522.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207