Department of Cardiology, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Gentofte Hospitalsvej 1, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark.
Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Dec 1;21(12):1386-1394. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeaa222.
Little is known about cardiac structure and function among atrial fibrillation (AF) subtypes; paroxysmal AF vs. persistent AF (PxAF), and across AF burden. We sought to assess differences in left atrial (LA) measures by AF subtype and burden.
This was a cross-sectional echocardiographic substudy of a randomized trial of AF patients scheduled for catheter ablation. Patients had an echocardiogram performed 0-90 days prior to study inclusion. We performed conventional echocardiographic measures, left ventricular (LV) and LA speckle tracking. Measures were compared between AF subtype and burden (0%, 0-99%, and 99-100%) determined by 72-h Holter monitoring. Of 212 patients, 107 had paroxysmal AF and 105 had PxAF. Those with PxAF had significantly reduced systolic function (LV ejection fraction: 48% vs. 53%; P < 0.001), larger end-systolic and end-diastolic LA volumes (LAVi and LAEDVi), reduced LA emptying fraction (LAEF: 29% vs. 36%, P < 0.001), and reduced LA strain (LAs) (LAs: 20% vs. 26%, P < 0.001). LA measures remained significantly lower in PxAF after multivariable adjustments. All LA measures and measures of systolic function were significantly impaired in patients with 99-100% AF burden, whereas all measures were similar between the other groups (LAVi: 40mL/m2 vs. 33mL/m2 vs. 34mL/m2; LAEDVi: 31mL/m2 vs. 21mL/m2 vs. 22mL/m2, LA emptying fraction: 23% vs. 35% vs. 36%, LAs: 16% vs. 25% vs. 25%, for 99-100%, 0-99%, and 0% AF, respectively, P < 0.001 for all). These differences were consistent after multivariable adjustments.
LA mechanics differ between AF subtype and burden and these characteristics influence the clinical interpretation of these measures.
阵发性房颤(AF)与持续性房颤(PxAF)之间以及房颤负荷不同时,心脏结构和功能的差异尚不清楚。我们旨在评估不同房颤亚型和负荷下左心房(LA)测量值的差异。
这是一项房颤患者导管消融随机试验的横断面超声心动图亚研究。患者在研究纳入前 0-90 天内进行了超声心动图检查。我们进行了常规超声心动图测量、左心室(LV)和 LA 斑点追踪。通过 72 小时 Holter 监测确定房颤亚型和负荷(0%、0-99%和 99-100%),并对这些指标进行比较。在 212 例患者中,107 例为阵发性房颤,105 例为持续性房颤。持续性房颤患者的收缩功能明显降低(LV 射血分数:48%比 53%;P<0.001),左房收缩末期和舒张末期容积较大(LAVi 和 LAEDVi),左房排空分数降低(LAEF:29%比 36%,P<0.001),左房应变(LAs)降低(20%比 26%,P<0.001)。多变量调整后,持续性房颤患者的左房测量值仍明显较低。99-100%房颤负荷患者的所有左房测量值和收缩功能指标均明显受损,而其他两组之间的所有指标均相似(LAVi:40ml/m2比 33ml/m2比 34ml/m2;LAEDVi:31ml/m2比 21ml/m2比 22ml/m2,LAEF:23%比 35%比 36%,LAs:16%比 25%比 25%,99-100%、0-99%和 0%房颤分别为 P<0.001)。多变量调整后,这些差异仍然存在。
LA 力学在房颤亚型和负荷之间存在差异,这些特征影响对这些指标的临床解释。