Aim: To evaluate volume and strain of the left atrium (LA) in people suffering from paroxysmal atrial fibrillation which is not valvular (NVPAF) using the new technology of left atrial automatic myocardial function imaging (AFILA) and to analyze prognostic factors in patients with NVPAF by follow-up.
Methods: Between August 2019 and August 2022, a total of 80 NVPAF patients and 60 normal control patients who were hospitalized in the Department of Cardiology were included in the study. The LA volume and strain parameters of the two groups were analyzed. The differences in LA function (LAF) parameters were compared between the two groups to generate the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and calculate the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of each parameter. Follow-up was conducted on the 80 NVPAF patients included, their treatment methods after admission and their rehospitalization due to heart events were recorded, and independent risk factors influencing the prognosis of NVPAF were obtained.
Results: A total of 140 patients participated in the study, including 80 in the NVPAF group and 60 in the normal control group. There was no statistically significant difference in age and sex between the two groups. Compared to the normal group, the LA minimum volume (LAVmin), LA maximum volume (LAVmax), and volume at onset of LA contraction (LAVpreA) in the NVPAF group were significantly increased. The LA emptying fraction (LAEF) was significantly decreased, and LA reservoir strain (S_R), LA conduit strain (S_CD), and LA contractile strain (S_CT) were significantly compromised (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in LA evacuation volume (LAEV) reduction (P > 0.05). Logistic regression analysis of LAF parameters in NVPAF patients showed that LAEF and S_R were independently correlated with NVPAF (odds ratio values: 0.883 (0.827-0.943), P < 0.001; 0.916 (0.569-1.474), P = 0.047). The ROC curve results showed that LAEF had a high efficiency in the diagnosis of NVPAF, with P < 0.001, AUC of 0.843, sensitivity of 0.788, and specificity of 0.867. For the LA strain parameters, the S_R test efficiency was higher, with P < 0.001, AUC of 0.762, sensitivity of 0.713, and specificity of 0.783. There was a strong correlation between S_R and LAEF in patients with no end event and those with end event. The ROC curve revealed that the S_R was better than LAEF in predicting prognosis of patients with AF (AUC = 0.914, P < 0.0001 vs. AUC = 0.876, P < 0.0001). S_R of 10.5 and LAEF of 21 were the cut-off values for endpoint events in NVPAF patients, with sensitivity of 0.909 and 0.727 and specificity of 0.904 and 0.901, respectively.
Conclusions: AFILA ultrasound technology comprehensively evaluated the LA size and function in patients with NVPAF. The LAEF and S_R were independently correlate
Background: Bachmann's bundle (BB) is the main pathway of interatrial connection that could be involved in the development of atrial fibrillation (AF). Based on this hypothesis, we raised a novel ablation strategy, BB modification in addition to circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (CPVI-BB) in patients with AF.
Methods: A retrospective cohort of patients with AF who underwent CPVI-BB or CPVI alone from March 2018 to July 2021 was enrolled in our study. Propensity score matching was performed in patients with paroxysmal AF and persistent AF, respectively, to reduce the risk of selection bias between the treatment strategies (CPVI-BB or CPVI alone). The primary endpoint was overall freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence through 12 months of follow-up.
Results: Our propensity score-matched cohort included 82 patients with paroxysmal AF (CPVI group: n = 41; CPVI-BB group: n = 41) and 168 patients with persistent AF (CPVI group: n = 84; CPVI-BB group: n = 84). Among patients with persistent AF, one-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate was 83.3% in the CPVI-BB group and 70.2% in the CPVI group (log-rank P = 0.047). Among patients with paroxysmal AF, no significant difference was found in the primary endpoint between two groups (85.4% in the CPVI-BB group vs. 80.5% in the CPVI group; log-rank P = 0.581). In addition, procedure-related complications and recurrence of atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter were similar between the two treatment groups, regardless of the type of AF.
Conclusions: BB modification in addition to CPVI is an effective approach in increasing the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF, while it does not improve the clinical outcomes of radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF.
[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/2283018.].