# Predicting adverse outcomes following catheter ablation treatment for atrial fibrillation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.11965 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11965/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Nov 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [DeepSurv: Personalized Treatment Recommender System Using A Cox Proportional Hazards Deep Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.00931/) (2016)
- [Deep Survival Machines: Fully Parametric Survival Regression and Representation Learning for Censored Data with Competing Risks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.01176/) (2020)
- [Effective Ways to Build and Evaluate Individual Survival Distributions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.11347/) (2018)
- [DeepSSM: A Deep Learning Framework for Statistical Shape Modeling from Raw Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.00111/) (2018)
- [auton-survival: an Open-Source Package for Regression, Counterfactual Estimation, Evaluation and Phenotyping with Censored Time-to-Event Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.07276/) (2022)
- [Predicting cardiovascular risk from national administrative databases using a combined survival analysis and deep learning approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.14032/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Objective: To develop prognostic survival models for predicting adverse outcomes after catheter ablation treatment for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We used a linked dataset including hospital administrative data, prescription medicine claims, emergency department presentations, and death registrations of patients in New South Wales, Australia. The cohort included patients who received catheter ablation for AF. Traditional and deep survival models were trained to predict major bleeding events and a composite of heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrest, and death. Results: Out of a total of 3285 patients in the cohort, 177 (5.3%) experienced the composite outcome (heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrest, death) and 167 (5.1%) experienced major bleeding events after catheter ablation treatment. Models predicting the composite outcome had high risk discrimination accuracy, with the best model having a concordance index > 0.79 at the evaluated time horizons. Models for predicting major bleeding events had poor risk discrimination performance, with all models having a concordance index < 0.66. The most impactful features for the models predicting higher risk were comorbidities indicative of poor health, older age, and therapies commonly used in sicker patients to treat heart failure and AF. Conclusions: Diagnosis and medication history did not contain sufficient information for precise risk prediction of experiencing major bleeding events. The models for predicting the composite outcome have the potential to enable clinicians to identify and manage high-risk patients following catheter ablation proactively. Future research is needed to validate the usefulness of these models in clinical practice.