Ruscio Eleonora, Gabrielli Francesca Augusta, Pinnacchio Gaetano, Spera Francesco Raffaele, Giordano Federica, Scacciavillani Roberto, Narducci Maria Lucia, Bencardino Gianluigi, Perna Francesco, Crea Filippo, Pelargonio Gemma
Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025 May 30;12:1578524. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1578524. eCollection 2025.
Left atrial (LA) remodeling in atrial fibrillation (AF) is well studied, whereas right atrial (RA) alterations remain poorly characterized. This study evaluates bi-atrial strain dynamics in patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation (CA).
A total of 56 consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation were prospectively evaluated using speckle-tracking echocardiography and electrophysiological study before and after CA (median follow-up: 7 ± 3 months). A control group of 32 individuals undergoing CA for paroxysmal atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia, without structural heart disease, was included for comparison.
Compared to controls, AF patients exhibited significantly lower RA strain parameters (right atrial peak strain, reservoir phase, pRASr: 22.1 ± 12.6% vs. 29.8 ± 12.7%, = 0.009) and greater RA mechanical dispersion (defined as the standard deviation of the time-to-peak positive strain, from the three RA segments, corrected for R-R interval, SD-regional-RA-TTP-N: 0.048 ± 0.015 vs. 0.038 ± 0.009, = 0.020). Patients with persistent AF demonstrated a more pronounced RA dysfunction than those with paroxysmal AF (pRASr: 15.9 ± 11.7% vs. 24.8 ± 12.1%, = 0.017; SD-regional-RA-TTP-N: 0.062 ± 0.030 vs. 0.043 ± 0.023, = 0.016), despite comparable LA strain values. RA function correlated with both LA strain and volume parameters, and with the extent of abnormal LA electroanatomical substrate (pRASr and left atrial peak strain, reservoir phase, pLASr: = 0.594, < 0.001; pRASr and low-voltage LA area: = -0.316, = 0.018). Notably, RA parameters, rather than LA indices, were significantly reduced in patients with post-ablation AF recurrence (pRASr: 14.1 ± 11.7% vs. 24.6 ± 13.5%, = 0.039; SD-regional-RA-TTP-N: 0.054 ± 0.031 vs. 0.032 ± 0.010, = 0.002). However, the CHA2DS2-VASc score remained the sole independent predictor of AF recurrence (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.003-2.158, = 0.048).
RA function, assessed through strain imaging, was progressively impaired in more severe AF subtypes, strongly correlating with bi-atrial mechanical and electroanatomical properties. Furthermore, RA function was associated with AF recurrence after catheter ablation, highlighting its potential prognostic value.
心房颤动(AF)时左心房(LA)重构已得到充分研究,而右心房(RA)改变的特征仍不明确。本研究评估了接受导管消融(CA)的AF患者的双心房应变动力学。
对56例连续接受AF消融的患者在CA前后使用斑点追踪超声心动图和电生理研究进行前瞻性评估(中位随访时间:7±3个月)。纳入32例因阵发性房室结折返性心动过速接受CA且无结构性心脏病的个体作为对照组进行比较。
与对照组相比,AF患者的RA应变参数显著降低(右心房峰值应变,储存期,pRASr:22.1±12.6% vs. 29.8±12.7%,P = 0.009),且RA机械离散度更大(定义为三个RA节段的峰值正向应变时间的标准差,校正R-R间期,SD-regional-RA-TTP-N:0.048±0.015 vs. 0.038±0.009,P = 0.020)。持续性AF患者的RA功能障碍比阵发性AF患者更明显(pRASr:15.9±11.7% vs. 24.8±12.1%,P = 0.017;SD-regional-RA-TTP-N:0.062±0.030 vs. 0.043±0.023,P = 0.016),尽管LA应变值相当。RA功能与LA应变和容积参数以及LA异常电解剖基质的范围相关(pRASr与左心房峰值应变,储存期,pLASr:r = 0.594,P < 0.001;pRASr与LA低电压区:r = -0.316,P = 0.018)。值得注意的是,消融后AF复发患者的RA参数而非LA指标显著降低(pRASr:14.1±11.7% vs. 24.6±13.5%,P = 0.039;SD-regional-RA-TTP-N:0.054±0.031 vs. 0.032±0.010,P = 0.002)然而,CHA2DS2-VASc评分仍然是AF复发的唯一独立预测因素(HR 1.47,95%CI 1.003 - 2.158,P = 0.048)。
通过应变成像评估的RA功能在更严重的AF亚型中逐渐受损,与双心房机械和电解剖特性密切相关。此外,RA功能与导管消融后AF复发相关,突出了其潜在的预后价值。