Silva Cunha Pedro, Laranjo Sérgio, Monteiro Sofia, Portugal Guilherme, Guerra Cátia, Rocha António Condeixa, Pereira Mariana, Ferreira Rui Cruz, Heijman Jordi, Oliveira Mário Martins
Arrhythmology, Pacing and Electrophysiology Unit, Cardiology Service, Santa Marta Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Centro Clínico Académico, Hospital de Santa Marta, Lisboa, Portugal.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Dec 16;11:1427841. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1427841. eCollection 2024.
Low atrial voltage and slow conduction velocity (CV) have been associated with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, their interaction and relative importance as early disease markers remain incompletely understood. We aimed to elucidate the relationship between atrial voltage and CV using high-density electroanatomic (HDE) maps of patients with AF.
HDE maps obtained during sinus rhythm in 52 patients with AF and five healthy controls were analysed. Atrial voltage and CV maps were generated, and their correlations were assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed based on clinically relevant factors such as AF type, CV, and voltage levels. Finally, cluster analysis was conducted to identify distinct phenotypes within the population, reflecting different patterns of conduction and voltage.
A moderate positive correlation was found between the mean atrial voltage and CV ( = 0.570). Subgroup analysis revealed differences in voltage ( = 0.0044) but not in global CV ( = 0.42), with no significant differences between AF types. Three distinct phenotypes emerged: normal voltage/normal CV, normal voltage/low CV, and low voltage/low CV, with distinct recurrence rates, suggesting different disease progression paths. Slower atrial CV was identified as a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence at 12 and 24 months after AF ablation, surpassing the predictive potential of atrial voltage.
Atrial voltage and CV analyses revealed distinct phenotypes. Lower atrial CV emerged as a significant predictor of AF recurrence, exceeding the predictive significance of atrial voltage. These findings emphasise the importance of considering CV and voltage in managing AF and offer potential insights for personalised strategies.
低心房电压和缓慢的传导速度(CV)与心房颤动(AF)有关;然而,它们作为早期疾病标志物的相互作用和相对重要性仍未完全明确。我们旨在利用房颤患者的高密度电解剖(HDE)图阐明心房电压与CV之间的关系。
分析了52例房颤患者和5名健康对照者在窦性心律期间获得的HDE图。生成了心房电压和CV图,并评估了它们之间的相关性。根据房颤类型、CV和电压水平等临床相关因素进行亚组分析。最后,进行聚类分析以识别群体中的不同表型,反映传导和电压的不同模式。
发现平均心房电压与CV之间存在中度正相关(=0.570)。亚组分析显示电压存在差异(=0.0044),但整体CV无差异(=0.42),房颤类型之间无显著差异。出现了三种不同的表型:正常电压/正常CV、正常电压/低CV和低电压/低CV,具有不同的复发率,提示不同的疾病进展路径。较慢的心房CV被确定为房颤消融后12个月和24个月心律失常复发的重要预测指标,超过了心房电压的预测潜力。
心房电压和CV分析揭示了不同的表型。较低的心房CV成为房颤复发的重要预测指标,超过了心房电压的预测意义。这些发现强调了在管理房颤时考虑CV和电压的重要性,并为个性化策略提供了潜在的见解。