4.6 Review

Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 748-760

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euaa041

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Recurrence; Prognostic model; Model performance; Systematic review

Funding

  1. European Union [633196]
  2. European Union BigData@Heart [EU IMI 116074]
  3. British Heart Foundation [FS/13/43/30324, PG/17/30/32961, AA/18/2/34218]
  4. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research - German Ministry of Education and Research (DZHK)
  5. Leducq Foundation
  6. UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Career Development Fellowship [CDF-2015-08-074]
  7. NIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship [PDF-2017-10-059]
  8. NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
  9. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PDF-2017-10-059] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available