TABLE 4.
Multivariate logistic analysis to predict gap formation
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
|
OR (95% CI) |
P‐value |
OR (95% CI) |
P‐value |
OR (95% CI) |
P‐value | |
| RF application (per 10 sec increase) |
0.7428 (0.4704‐1.1730) |
0.2021 | ||||
| CF (per 10 gram increase) |
1.5641 (1.0070‐2.4295) |
0.0465 |
1.5609 (0.8608‐2.8303) |
0.1425 |
1.6633 (0.9287‐2.9788) |
0.0870 |
| Power (per 10 W increase) |
1.9603 (0.7735‐4.9680) |
0.1560 | ||||
| Impedance drop (per 10 Ω decrease) |
0.7543 (0.4349‐1.3081) |
0.3155 | ||||
| Actual VS (per 10‐unit increase) |
1.0169 (0.9664‐1.0701) |
0.5181 | ||||
| ITD (per 1 mm increase) |
1.2564 (1.1455‐1.3780) |
<0.0001 |
1.2467 (1.1354‐1.3688) |
<0.0001 | ||
| ITD (<4 mm [reference] vs ≥4mm) |
6.6208 (2.2501‐19.4813) |
0.0006 |
6.6051 (2.2444‐19.4387) |
0.0006 | ||
Multivariate logistic regression included variables with a p value <0.10 in univariate analysis. Model 1 was performed with ITD in 1 mm increments, while Model 2 divided data into those meeting the target ITD (reference) vs those that did not.
Abbreviations: CF, contact force; CI, confidence interval; ITD, inter‐tag distance; OR, odds ratio; RF, radiofrequency; VS, VISITAG SURPOINT; W, watts.