Table 2.

Different multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.

Model 1—100 pg/mL NT-pro-BNP Increase vs. Composite Endpoint
Variable	HR	95% CI	p-Value
100 pg/mL increase in NT-pro-BNP	1.04	1.01–1.07	0.005
Non-paroxysmal AF	1.83	1.16–2.87	0.009
EF (%)	1.00	0.97–1.03	0.990
BMI	1.03	0.99–1.07	0.149
GFR	1.01	1.00–1.02	0.276
Coronary artery disease	1.48	0.91–2.43	0.115
Age	0.99	0.97–1.01	0.365
Male sex	0.68	0.46–1.01	0.056
Cryoballoon generation:
2nd vs. 1st	1.12	0.74–1.69	0.593
3rd vs. 1st	0.97	0.50–1.88	0.928
Left atrial volume	1.01	1.00–1.01	<0.001
Model 2—NT-pro-BNP Tertile vs. Composite Endpoint
Variable	HR	95% CI	p-Value
NT-pro-BNP tertile:
2nd vs. 1st	1.21	0.76–1.91	0.417
3rd vs. 1st	1.78	1.10–2.87	0.018
Non-paroxysmal AF	1.65	1.03–2.63	0.036
EF (%)	1.00	0.97–1.03	0.910
BMI	1.03	0.99–1.07	0.150
GFR	1.01	1.00–1.02	0.218
Coronary artery disease	1.39	0.85–2.27	0.186
Age	0.99	0.97–1.01	0.317
Male sex	0.65	0.44–0.94	0.023
Cryoballoon generation:
2nd vs. 1st	1.07	0.71–1.61	0.736
3rd vs. 1st	0.99	0.51–1.89	0.968
Left atrial volume	1.01	1.00–1.01	<0.001
Model 3—Log NT-pro-BNP vs. Composite Endpoint
Variable	HR	95% CI	p-Value
NT-pro-BNP increase of one natural log unit	1.32	1.10–1.58	0.002
Non-paroxysmal AF	1.68	1.06–2.66	0.027
EF (%)	1.00	0.97–1.03	0.911
BMI	1.03	0.99–1.07	0.164
GFR	1.01	1.00–1.02	0.153
Coronary artery disease	1.44	0.88–2.35	0.145
Age	0.99	0.97–1.01	0.175
Male sex	0.68	0.47–1.01	0.053
Cryoballoon generation:
2nd vs. 1st	1.14	0.75–1.72	0.539
3rd vs. 1st	1.01	0.53–1.95	0.972
Left atrial volume	1.01	1.00–1.01	<0.001

Different multivariate Cox proportional hazards models considering important clinical confounders. Model 1: 100 pg/mL NT-pro-BNP increase vs. composite endpoint, Model 2: NT-pro-BNP tertile vs. composite endpoint, Model 3: natural log transformed NT-pro-BNP vs. composite endpoint. HR = hazard ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, AF = atrial fibrillation, EF = ejection fraction, BMI = body mass index.