Why the study?
AF frequently recurs after electrical cardioversion, and identifying which patients will benefit remains difficult.
Do sex-specific machine learning models improve the prediction of successful electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation compared to logistic regression?
Do sex-specific machine learning models improve the prediction of successful electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation compared to logistic regression?
Machine learning models do not significantly outperform traditional logistic regression in predicting successful electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, with both showing modest predictive performance.
Should not yet change cardioversion selection; leaves open whether richer data can identify durable sinus-rhythm responders.
OBJECTIVE: Electrical cardioversion is frequently performed to restore sinus rhythm in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF recurs in many patients and identifying the patients who benefit from electrical cardioversion is difficult. The objective was to develop sex-specific prediction models for successful electrical cardioversion and assess the potential of machine learning methods in comparison with traditional logistic regression. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we examined several candidate predictors, including comorbidities, biochemistry, echocardiographic data, and medication. The outcome was successful cardioversion, defined as normal sinus rhythm immediately after the electrical cardioversion and no documented recurrence of AF within 3 months after. We used random forest and logistic regression models for sex-specific prediction. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 332 female and 790 male patients with persistent AF who underwent electrical cardioversion. Cardioversion was successful in 44.9% of the women and 49.9% of the men. The prediction errors of the models were high for both women (41.0% for machine learning and 48.8% for logistic regression) and men (46.0% for machine learning and 44.8% for logistic regression). Discrimination was modest for both machine learning (0.59 for women and 0.56 for men) and logistic regression models (0.60 for women and 0.59 for men), although the models were well calibrated. CONCLUSIONS: Sex-specific machine learning and logistic regression models showed modest predictive performance for successful electrical cardioversion. Identifying patients who will benefit from cardioversion remains challenging in clinical practice. The high recurrence rate calls for thoroughly informed shared decision-making for electrical cardioversion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vinter et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: