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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dretzke, Janine, Chuchu, Naomi, Agarwal, Ridhi, Herd, Clare, Chua, Winnie, Fabritz, Larissa, Bayliss, Susan, Kotecha, Dipak, Deeks, Jonathan J, Kirchhof, Paulus, Takwoingi, Yemisi
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