Hermans Astrid N L, Pluymaekers Nikki A H A, Lankveld Theo A R, van Mourik Manouk J W, Zeemering Stef, Dinh Trang, den Uijl Dennis W, Luermans Justin G L M, Vernooy Kevin, Crijns Harry J G M, Schotten Ulrich, Linz Dominik
Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Department of Physiology, Maastricht University and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2021 Sep 15;36:100870. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100870. eCollection 2021 Oct.
The best strategy to assess the association between symptoms and rhythm status (symptom-rhythm correlation) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the clinical utility of rhythm control by electrical cardioversion (ECV) to assess symptom-rhythm correlation in patients with persistent AF.
We used ECV to examine symptom-rhythm correlation in 81 persistent AF patients. According to current clinical practice, the presence of self-reported symptoms before ECV and at the first outpatient clinic follow-up visit (within 1-month) was assessed to determine the prevalence of a symptom-rhythm correlation (defined as self-reported symptoms present during AF and absent in sinus rhythm or absent in AF and yet relief during sinus rhythm). In addition, we evaluated symptom patterns around ECV.
Only in 18 patients (22%), a symptom-rhythm correlation could be documented. Twenty-eight patients (35%) did not show any symptom-rhythm correlation and 35 patients (43%) had an unevaluable symptom-rhythm correlation as these patients were in symptomatic AF both at baseline and at the first outpatient AF clinic follow-up visit. Importantly, self-reported symptom patterns around ECV were intra-individually variable in 10 patients (12%) without symptom-rhythm correlation (of which 9 patients (11%) had AF recurrence) and in 2 patients (2%) with an unevaluable symptom-rhythm correlation.
In patients with persistent AF, symptom assessment around rhythm control by ECV, once before ECV and once within 1-month follow-up, rarely identifies a symptom-rhythm correlation and often suggests changes in symptom pattern. Better strategies are needed to assess symptom-rhythm correlation in patients with persistent AF.
评估心房颤动(AF)患者症状与节律状态之间关联(症状 - 节律相关性)的最佳策略仍不明确。我们旨在确定通过电复律(ECV)进行节律控制以评估持续性AF患者症状 - 节律相关性的临床效用。
我们使用ECV检查了81例持续性AF患者的症状 - 节律相关性。根据当前临床实践,评估ECV前及首次门诊随访(1个月内)时自我报告症状的存在情况,以确定症状 - 节律相关性的患病率(定义为AF期间存在自我报告症状,窦性心律时不存在;或AF时不存在症状,但窦性心律时缓解)。此外,我们评估了ECV前后的症状模式。
仅18例患者(22%)可记录到症状 - 节律相关性。28例患者(35%)未显示任何症状 - 节律相关性,35例患者(43%)的症状 - 节律相关性无法评估,因为这些患者在基线及首次门诊AF随访时均处于有症状的AF状态。重要的是,在10例(12%)无症状 - 节律相关性的患者(其中9例(11%)发生AF复发)和2例(2%)症状 - 节律相关性无法评估的患者中,ECV前后自我报告的症状模式存在个体内差异。
在持续性AF患者中, 通过ECV进行节律控制前后(ECV前一次,随访1个月内一次)的症状评估,很少能确定症状 - 节律相关性,且常提示症状模式发生变化。需要更好的策略来评估持续性AF患者的症状 - 节律相关性。