4.6 Article

Atrial arrhythmia after transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects in patients ≥40 years of age

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages 1322-1326

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw186

Keywords

Atrial septal defect; Device closure; Atrial arrhythmia; Radiofrequency ablation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim Data on arrhythmia outcome following device closure of atrial septal defect (ASD) are lacking. This study provides medium-term follow-up data on atrial arrhythmias in patients who were >= 40 years of age at the time of transcatheter ASD closure. Methods and results It is a retrospective review. Mean age of the 159 patients was 57 years. Median follow-up was 3.6 years (range 6 months-10.9 years). Patients were classified, according to arrhythmia status prior to ASD closure, into Group I, no history of atrial arrhythmia (n = 119, mean age 55.5 years); Group II, paroxysmal atrial arrhythmia (n = 18, mean age 55.7 years); and Group III, persistent atrial fibrillation (n = 22, mean age 65.7 years). Group III patients were significantly older, had larger left atrial size, and had higher mean pulmonary arterial pressure than Group I and II patients (P < 0.001). Prior to closure, radiofrequency ablation was carried out in 12/18 (66%) of Group II and 3/22 (14%) of Group III. After device closure, 7 patients (6%) of Group I developed new atrial fibrillation. Fifty per cent (9/18) of Group II but only 9% (2/22) of Group III were in sinus rhythm on follow-up. Conclusion Device closure alone in patients with persistent atrial arrhythmia is not likely to restore sinus rhythm in the medium term. New atrial arrhythmia occurred in 6% of patients who were in sinus rhythm prior to device closure. At least 50% of the patients with paroxysmal atrial arrhythmia continue to have significant atrial arrhythmia following device closure, and the role of ablation prior to closure in patients with a history of arrhythmia requires refinement.

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