4.6 Article

Long-term incidence of atrial fibrillation and flutter after transcatheter atrial septal defect closure in adults

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 134, Issue 1, Pages 47-51

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.02.003

Keywords

Atrial septal defect; Atrial fibrillation; Transcatheter closure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The long-term risk of atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF) after trascatheter atrial septal defects (ASD) closure in adults is unknown. Methods: We studied 134 patients who have undergone transcatheter ASD closure at our institution at an age of > 18 years (mean age 39 +/- 16 years); Patients were followed-up for 4.8 +/- 2.7 years (range 0.8-9.6 years). We assessed the presence of AFF both before and after ASD closure using standard 12 lead ECGs or 24h ambulatory Holter monitors. Results: 13 patients (10%) had documented AFF before the procedure (paroxysmal in 6, permanent in 7). Patients with AFF before the procedure were older (p < 0.0001), and had worse clinical condition (p = 0.0008). Patients without a history of AFF before the procedure and those who experienced paroxysmal AFF before the procedure had a very low annual risk (0%) of subsequent permanent AFF at long-term follow-up. Four patients with permanent AFF before the procedure (onset of < 12months) underwent electrical cardioversion immediately before ASD closure. Two of them (50%) are in sinus rhythm after 4.1 and 7.0 years, respectively. Conclusions: Transcatheter ASD closure performed in adults with no history of AFF or with a history of paroxysmal AFF before closure seems to protect from development of AFF in the long-term. In selected patients with permanent AFF at closure, device ASD closure together with arrhythmia cardioversion might be able to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in the long-term. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available