4.2 Article

Left Ventricular Filling Pressure as Assessed by the E/e′ Ratio Is a Determinant of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Cardioversion

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 64-71

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.1.64

关键词

Diastolic dysfunction; left ventricular filling pressure; atrial fibrillation; cardioversion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Left ventricular (LV) filling pressure affects atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. We investigated the relationship between diastolic dysfunction and AF recurrence after cardioversion, and whether LV filling pressure was predictive of AF recurrence. Materials and Methods: Sixty-six patients (mean 58 +/- 12 years) with newly diagnosed persistent AF were retrospectively enrolled. We excluded patients with left atrial (LA) diameters larger than 50 mm, thereby isolating the effect of LV filling pressure. We evaluated the differences between the patients with (group 1) and without AF recurrence (group 2). Results: Group 1 showed increased LA volume index (LAVI) and E/e' compared to group 2 (p<0.05). During a mean follow-up period of 25 +/- 19 months, AF recurrence after cardioversion was 60.6% (40/66). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of E/e' for AF recurrence was 0.780 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.657-0.903], and the optimal cut-off value of the E/e' was 9.15 with 75.0% of sensitivity and 73.1% of specificity. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that the cumulative recurrence-free survival rate was significantly lower in patients with higher LV filling pressure (E/e'>9.15) compared with patients with lower LV filling pressure (E/e'<= 9.15) (log rank p=0.008). Cox regression analysis revealed that E/e' [hazards ratio (HR): 1.100, 95% CI: 1.017-1.190] and LAVI (HR: 1.042,95% CI: 1.002-1.084) were independent predictors for AF recurrence after cardioversion. Conclusion: LV filling pressure predicts the risk of AF recurrence in persistent AF patients after cardioversion.

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

4.2
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