Prediction of Pulmonary Vein Isolation and Gap Recurrence on 12-Lead ECG Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is key to atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but arrhythmia often recurs due to conduction gaps permitting pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection. Currently, gap identification requires invasive remapping. We evaluated whether deep learning applied to surface electrocardiograms (ECGs) could (i) detect the electrophysiologic signature of PVI and (ii) predict PV reconnection at redo ablation. Methods We retrospectively studied 176 patients (2012–2023) who had initial PVI and repeat ablation. A total of 865 10-second 12-lead ECGs were extracted from GE MUSE and CardioLab systems, segmented into 1-2 second clips, and used to train ResNet-based convolutional neural networks. Separate models were developed for: (i) PVI detection (pre-vs. post-ablation ECGs) and (ii) gap prediction using pre-redo ECGs. Demographic features were tested alone and in multimodal fusion with ECGs. Performance was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity with stratified cross-validation. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) assessed feature importance. Results The best PVI detection model distinguished ECGs before and after PVI with the area under the ROC (AUROC) = 0.879. Grad-CAM localized attention to the diastolic period and P-wave morphology. For gap prediction, the model trained on pre-redo ECGs achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (sensitivity 77.5%, specificity 75.8%). Adding demographics improved the AUROC to 0.830 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 72%), whereas demographics alone performed no better than chance (AUROC = <50%). Feature importance analysis highlighted P-wave onset and offset, inter-ablation time interval, left atrial volume index, age, and left ventricular ejection function as the strongest contributors in gap prediction. Conclusions Deep learning identifies a consistent ECG biosignature of acute PVI and predicts PV reconnection before redo ablation with moderate accuracy, primarily using P-wave morphology. These models may inform patient selection, procedural planning, and counselling in patients with recurrent AF after PVI. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE What is Known Arrhythmia recurrence post-pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are commonly caused by conduction gaps in the PV, and repeat isolation procedures lead to better arrhythmia-free survival compared to if recurrences are due to extrapulmonary triggers with chronically isolated veins. Currently, there are no non-invasive methods to detect conduction gaps after PVI. What the Study Adds Our deep learning models can predict the presence of conduction gaps from non-invasive surface electrocardiograms prior to repeat procedures with moderate accuracy. We identified important ECG and demographic features in predicting gap presence. Ultimately, we provide potential methods of risk-stratifying patients and selecting candidates for repeat procedures that can be accessed in outpatient settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".