Cargando…
Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models
AIMS: We assessed the performance of modelsf (risk scores) for predicting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted (November 2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7203634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32227238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa041 |
_version_ | 1783529905964711936 |
---|---|
author | Dretzke, Janine Chuchu, Naomi Agarwal, Ridhi Herd, Clare Chua, Winnie Fabritz, Larissa Bayliss, Susan Kotecha, Dipak Deeks, Jonathan J Kirchhof, Paulus Takwoingi, Yemisi |
author_facet | Dretzke, Janine Chuchu, Naomi Agarwal, Ridhi Herd, Clare Chua, Winnie Fabritz, Larissa Bayliss, Susan Kotecha, Dipak Deeks, Jonathan J Kirchhof, Paulus Takwoingi, Yemisi |
author_sort | Dretzke, Janine |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: We assessed the performance of modelsf (risk scores) for predicting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted (November 2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development, validation, or impact assessment of a model for predicting AF recurrence after ablation. Model performance (discrimination and calibration) measures were extracted. The Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to clinical and methodological differences between studies, but c-statistics were presented in forest plots. Thirty-three studies developing or validating 13 models were included; eight studies compared two or more models. Common model variables were left atrial parameters, type of AF, and age. Model discriminatory ability was highly variable and no model had consistently poor or good performance. Most studies did not assess model calibration. The main risk of bias concern was the lack of internal validation which may have resulted in overly optimistic and/or biased model performance estimates. No model impact studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review suggests that clinical risk prediction of AF after ablation has potential, but there remains a need for robust evaluation of risk factors and development of risk scores. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7203634 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72036342020-05-11 Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models Dretzke, Janine Chuchu, Naomi Agarwal, Ridhi Herd, Clare Chua, Winnie Fabritz, Larissa Bayliss, Susan Kotecha, Dipak Deeks, Jonathan J Kirchhof, Paulus Takwoingi, Yemisi Europace Clinical Research AIMS: We assessed the performance of modelsf (risk scores) for predicting recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic searches of bibliographic databases were conducted (November 2018). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development, validation, or impact assessment of a model for predicting AF recurrence after ablation. Model performance (discrimination and calibration) measures were extracted. The Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to clinical and methodological differences between studies, but c-statistics were presented in forest plots. Thirty-three studies developing or validating 13 models were included; eight studies compared two or more models. Common model variables were left atrial parameters, type of AF, and age. Model discriminatory ability was highly variable and no model had consistently poor or good performance. Most studies did not assess model calibration. The main risk of bias concern was the lack of internal validation which may have resulted in overly optimistic and/or biased model performance estimates. No model impact studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review suggests that clinical risk prediction of AF after ablation has potential, but there remains a need for robust evaluation of risk factors and development of risk scores. Oxford University Press 2020-05 2020-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7203634/ /pubmed/32227238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa041 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Research Dretzke, Janine Chuchu, Naomi Agarwal, Ridhi Herd, Clare Chua, Winnie Fabritz, Larissa Bayliss, Susan Kotecha, Dipak Deeks, Jonathan J Kirchhof, Paulus Takwoingi, Yemisi Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
title | Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
title_full | Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
title_fullStr | Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
title_full_unstemmed | Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
title_short | Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
title_sort | predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models |
topic | Clinical Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7203634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32227238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa041 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dretzkejanine predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT chuchunaomi predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT agarwalridhi predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT herdclare predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT chuawinnie predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT fabritzlarissa predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT baylisssusan predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT kotechadipak predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT deeksjonathanj predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT kirchhofpaulus predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels AT takwoingiyemisi predictingrecurrentatrialfibrillationaftercatheterablationasystematicreviewofprognosticmodels |