Portable Device Improves the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation After Ablation

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77-94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.

The impact of home electrocardiograph measurement rate on the detection of atrial fibrillation recurrence after ablation: A prospective multicenter observational study

Background

This multicenter prospective observational study examined the impact of additionally using a home electrocardiograph (ECG) to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after ablation.

Methods

Between May 2019 and December 2020, 128 patients undergoing ablation were enrolled in the study. After performing ablation, they were instructed to measure their ECGs at home using Complete (ECG paired with a blood pressure monitor; Omron Healthcare, Japan) every day and to visit the hospital every 3 months until after 12 months for 24-hour Holter ECG and 12-lead ECG as usual care (UC).

Results

After ablation, 94 patients were followed up, and AF recurrence at 12 months was detected more commonly in adjudicators-interpreted Complete (31 [33 %]) than in UC (18 [9 %]) (hazard ratio 1.95, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.35-2.81, P < 0.001). In patients with recurrent AF found via both modalities (n = 16), the time to first AF detection by Complete was 40.9 ± 73.9 days faster than that in UC (P = 0.04). Notably, when the adherence to Complete measurement was divided by 80 %, the add-on effect of Complete on the detection of recurrent AF in UC indicated the hazard ratio (HR) of 1.71 (95 %CI 0.92-3.18, P = 0.09) for the low adherence (<80 %) group, but it was significant for the high adherence (≥80 %) group, with HR of 2.19 (95 %CI 1.43-3.36, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Despite a shorter measurement time, Complete detected recurrent AF more frequently and faster compared with UC after AF ablation. A significant adherence-dependent difference of Complete was found in detecting AF recurrence.

Comparison of the empirical linear ablation and low voltage area-guided ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

The efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is not guaranteed for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), and it is unclear which type of ablation approach should be applied in addition to PVI. This study aimed to compare outcomes and prognosis between empirical linear ablation and low-voltage area (LVA) ablation after PVI for PeAF.

Methods

We enrolled 128 patients with PeAF who were assigned to the linear ablation group (n = 64) and the LVA ablation group (n = 64) using a propensity score-matched model. After PVI and cardioversion, the patients underwent either empirical linear ablation or LVA ablation during sinus rhythm. All patients in the linear ablation group underwent both roof line and mitral valve isthmus (MVI) ablations. An electrical-guided ablation targeting LVA (< 0.5 mV) was performed in the LVA group. When there was no LVA in the LVA group, only PVI was applied. We compared the procedural outcomes and recurrence after ablation between the two groups.

Results

The baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. Fifty patients had LVA (22 and 28 patients in the linear and LVA groups). The roof and MVI lines were completed in 100% and 96.9% of the patients. During the mean follow-up of 279.5 ± 161.3 days, the LVA group had significantly lower recurrence than the linear group (15 patients [23%] vs. 29 patients [45%], p = 0.014). Thirty-five patients were prescribed antiarrhythmic drugs during the follow-up period (linear group, n = 17; LVA group, n = 18); amiodarone and bepridil were administered to most of the patients (15 and 17 patients, respectively). The difference in the prognosis was relevant among the patients with LVA, while this trend was not observed in those without LVA. The LVA ablation group demonstrated significantly lower radiofrequency energy and shorter procedural time compared to the linear ablation group. The recurrence of atrial flutter was more likely to occur in the linear group than in the LVA group (14 [22%] vs. 6 [9.4%], p = 0.052).

Conclusion

The electrophysiological-guided LVA ablation is more effective than empirical linear ablation in PeAF patients with LVA. Unnecessary empirical linear ablation might have a risk of iatrogenic gap and atrial flutter recurrence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02460-9.