4.0 Article

Changes in left ventricular filling parameters following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10840-016-0131-8

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Ventricular relaxation; Catheter ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in the setting of abnormal ventricular relaxation. We evaluated the association between ventricular relaxation grade and atrial fibrosis and examined the change in left ventricular filling parameters following catheter ablation. Methods and results AF patients undergoing catheter ablation who had cardiac late gadolinium enhancement MRI (LGE-MRI) and echocardiographic examinations were included in the study. Left atrial (LA) tissue fibrosis and volume were quantified using LGE-MRI. Echocardiograms were performed at baseline and 3 months following catheter ablation to assess left ventricular (LV) filling. Two hundred and ninety three patients (60.8 % male) met the inclusion criteria. In patients in sinus rhythm at baseline (n = 115), ventricular relaxation pattern was identified as normal in 54 patients (47.0 %), impaired in 35 (30.4 %), pseudo-normal in 18 (15.7 %), and restrictive in 8 (7.0 %). Restrictive LV filling was associated with higher LA volume index (61.2 +/- 30.5 vs 46.0 +/- 18.5 ml/m(2); p < 0.01) and LA fibrosis (21.8 +/- 10.9% vs 15.5 +/- 9.4 %; p = 0.036) compared to non-restrictive filling. In patients in sinus rhythm on both pre-and post-ablation echocardiograms (n = 104), A waves decreased from 0.70 +/- 0.23 at baseline to 0.60 +/- 0.20 (p < 0.01) and E/E' decreased from 9.6 +/- 4.0 at baseline to 8.6 +/- 3.5 (p = 0.03). Thirty-two patients (27.2 %) had an improvement, and 24 patients (23.1 %) had a worsening in diastolic grade. Clinical heart failure and diabetes were associated with worse diastolic grade postablation. Conclusions Restrictive LV filling is associated with higher LA fibrosis. A change in echocardiographic LV filling pattern was noted in over 50 % of patients post-ablation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据