4.5 Article

Long-Term Effects of Box Isolation on Sympathovagal Balance in Atrial Fibrillation

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 74, Issue 6, Pages 1096-1103

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-09-0899

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; Autonomic nervous system; Catheter ablation; Electrophysiology; Heart rate variability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Complete isolation of the posterior left atrium, including all pulmonary veins (box isolation), is a feasible and safe atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment method. Data on long-term effects of box isolation on autonomic function, however, remain limited. Methods and Results: A total of 92 patients (paroxysmal AF, n=76; persistent AF, n=16) undergoing box isolation with non-contact mapping were studied. Twenty-four-hours ambulatory electrocardiograms and transthoracic echocardiography were done at baseline and after 2 days, and at 3, 6 and 12 months. Autonomic functions were evaluated by means of heart rate variability (HRV). During a mean follow up of 16 +/- 5 months, no AF episodes were detected in 76 patients while AF recurred in 16. Significant long-term HRV attenuations were observed in all patients without AF recurrence, but not in those with AF recurrence. In patients without AF recurrence, the natural logarithm (Ln) high-frequency (HF) decreased significantly from 5.5 +/- 1.3 ms(2) (before) to 4.2 +/- 0.9 ms(2) (after 12 months, P<0.001) and the ratio of the low-frequency to HF power increased significantly from 2.4 +/- 2.0 (before) to 3.4 +/- 2.3 (after 12 months, P=0.05). LnHF was significantly lower in patients without than in those with AF recurrence during the 12-month period after ablation. Cardiac function improved significantly in patients without AF recurrence after box isolation. Conclusions: Changes in the sympathovagal balance with box isolation may contribute to AF prevention. (Circ J 2010; 74: 1096-1103)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available