Back

Post-Ablation PAI-1 Difference as a Biomarker for Ablation Success: A Diagnostic Study

Rekvava, R.; Nemade, J.; Tchikhoria, T.; Berkinbayev, S.; Tabagari, N.

2025-10-21 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2025.10.18.25338273 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with a prothrombotic state and impaired fibrinolysis. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), a key regulator of the fibrinolytic system, is linked to increased cardiovascular risk when elevated. Catheter ablation is a well-established treatment for restoring sinus rhythm in AF. Previous studies show that PAI-1 levels decrease 1-3 months post-ablation, indicating potential therapeutic relevance. ObjectiveTo evaluate whether within-patient differences in PAI-1 levels predict procedural success following catheter ablation for AF. Methods70 AF patients aged [&ge;]60 years (35 paroxysmal, 35 persistent) undergoing ablation were prospectively enrolled. PAI-1 levels were measured pre-procedure and 1-3 months post-ablation. Differences were correlated with ablation modality, AF type, recurrence and sex. Analyses included Spearmans correlation, ROC curves, and diagnostic performance metrics. Difference thresholds were determined using interpolation, Highest-Density-Interval, and Bayesian analysis. ResultsOverall, PAI-1 levels decreased significantly post-ablation (t=15.1, p<0.00001); weak to moderate differences were observed by sex (t=2.14, p<0.05) and AF type (t=4.26, p<0.0001). Post-ablation PAI-1 difference (-14 to -3.48 ng/mL) predicted a recurrence rate of 4.2-22.5%, with 92% sensitivity, 65% specificity, 87% PPV, 76% NPV, and 84% accuracy. ConclusionIn patients aged [&ge;]60 years, within-patient PAI-1 differences of -14 to -3.48 ng/mL may help predict ablation outcomes. Although limited by small sample size, mechanistic rationale suggests that greater reductions in PAI-1 may be associated with improved procedural performance.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.