Boriani G, Diemberger I, Biffi M, Domenichini G, Martignani C, Valzania C, Branzi A
Institute of Cardiology, University of Bologna, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Int J Clin Pract. 2007 May;61(5):748-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01298.x.
Despite the results of Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management and Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation trials, which favour a general shift in atrial fibrillation (AF) therapeutic approach towards control of ventricular rate, a strategy based on restoration of sinus rhythm could still play a role in selected patients at lower risk of AF recurrence. We explored possible predictors of relapses after external electrical cardioversion among patients with persistent AF or atrial flutter (AFL). We analysed the clinical characteristics and conventional echocardiographic parameters of patients with persistent AF/AFL enrolled in an institutional electrical cardioversion programme. Among 242 patients (AF/AFL, 195/47; mean age 62+/-13 years), sinus rhythm was restored in 215 (89%) and maintained in 73 (34%) at a follow-up of 930 days (median). No baseline clinical/echocardiographic variables predicted acute efficacy of cardioversion at logistic regression analysis. However, two variables predicted long-term AF/AFL recurrence among patients with successful cardioversion at multivariate Cox's proportional hazards analysis: (i) duration of arrhythmia>or=1 year (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.29-3.33) and (ii) presence of previous cardioversion (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.17-2.38). These variables also presented high-positive predictive values (72% and 80% respectively). Whereas the high acute efficacy of electrical cardioversion (approximately 90%) does not appear to be predictable, two simple clinical variables could help identify patients at higher risk of long-term AF/AFL recurrence after successful electrical cardioversion. We think there could be a case for initially attempting external electrical cardioversion to patients who have had AF/AFL for <1 year. In such patients, the chance of long-term success appears to be relatively high.
尽管节律管理与频率控制对持续性心房颤动的随访研究以及持续性心房颤动电复律试验的结果表明,心房颤动(AF)治疗方法总体上倾向于控制心室率,但基于恢复窦性心律的策略在房颤复发风险较低的特定患者中仍可发挥作用。我们探讨了持续性房颤或心房扑动(AFL)患者体外电复律后复发的可能预测因素。我们分析了纳入机构电复律项目的持续性AF/AFL患者的临床特征和传统超声心动图参数。在242例患者中(AF/AFL,195/47;平均年龄62±13岁),在930天(中位数)的随访中,215例(89%)恢复窦性心律,73例(34%)维持窦性心律。在逻辑回归分析中,没有基线临床/超声心动图变量可预测复律的急性疗效。然而,在多变量Cox比例风险分析中,两个变量可预测成功复律患者的长期AF/AFL复发:(i)心律失常持续时间≥1年(HR,2.07;95%CI,1.29 - 3.33)和(ii)既往有复律史(HR,1.67;95%CI,1.17 - 2.38)。这些变量也具有较高的阳性预测值(分别为72%和80%)。虽然电复律的高急性疗效(约90%)似乎无法预测,但两个简单的临床变量可帮助识别成功电复律后长期AF/AFL复发风险较高的患者。我们认为对于AF/AFL病程<1年的患者,最初可尝试体外电复律。在此类患者中,长期成功的机会似乎相对较高。