Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) does not predict atrial fibrillation following patent...

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a known complication following patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. AI-enabled ECG (AI-ECG) acquired during normal sinus rhythm has been shown to identify individuals with AF by noting high-risk ECG features invisible to the human eye. We sought to characterize the value of AI-ECG in predicting AF development following PFO closure and investigate key clinical and procedural characteristics possibly associated with post-procedural AF.

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PFO closure at our hospital from January 2011 to December 2022. We recorded the probability (%) of AF using the Mayo Clinic AI-ECG dashboard from pre- and post-procedure ECGs. The cut-off point of ≥ 11 %, which was found to optimally balance sensitivity and specificity in the original derivation paper (the Youden index) was used to label an AI-ECG "positive" for AF. Pre-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and pre- and post-procedure transcranial doppler (TCD) data was also recorded.

Out of 93 patients, 49 (53 %) were male, mean age was 55 ± 15 years with mean post-procedure follow up of 29 ± 3 months. Indication for PFO closure in 69 (74 %) patients was for secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack (TIA) and/or stroke. Twenty patients (22 %) developed paroxysmal AF post-procedure, with the majority within the first month post-procedure (15 patients, 75 %). Patients who developed AF were not significantly more likely to have a positive post-procedure AI-ECG than those who did not develop AF (30 % AF vs 27 % no AF, p = 0.8).Based on the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification, patients who had PFO closure for secondary prevention of TIA and/or stroke in the "possible" group were significantly more likely to develop AF than patients in "probable" and "unlikely" groups (p = 0.034). AF-developing patients were more likely to have post-procedure implantable loop recorder (ILR) (55 % vs 9.6 %, p < 0.001), and longer duration of ILR monitoring (121 vs 92.5 weeks, p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in TCD and TEE characteristics, device type, or device size between those who developed AF vs those who did not.

In this small, retrospective study, AI-ECG did not accurately distinguish patients who developed AF post-PFO closure from those who did not. Although AI-ECG has emerged as a valuable tool for risk prediction of AF, extrapolation of its performance to procedural settings such as PFO closure requires further investigation.