PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 31, 2009EP Europace71 citationsOpen Access

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction by itself does not influence outcome of atrial fibrillation ablation

View Full Paper
TPTom De PotterABAntonio BerruezoLMLluı́s Mont

Structured PICO

Does depressed LVEF influence AF recurrence after a first AF ablation procedure in patients with atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
72 patients undergoing a first atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedure, matched 1:1 by left atrial diameter, arterial hypertension, age, gender, and AF type (paroxysmal vs. persistent).
I
Intervention
AF ablation in patients with depressed LVEF (n=36)
C
Comparator
AF ablation in patients with normal LVEF (n=36)
O
Outcome
AF recurrences

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction by itself is not a predictor of AF recurrence after a first ablation procedure, whereas left atrial diameter independently correlates with outcome.

Abstract

AIMS: The objective of the study was to analyse the influence of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) on the outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation after a first procedure. Pre-procedural predictors of recurrences after AF ablation can be useful for patient information and selection of candidates. The independent influence of LV systolic dysfunction on recurrence rate has not been studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: A case-control study (1:1) was conducted with a total of 72 patients: 36 cases (depressed LVEF) and 36 controls (normal LVEF). Patients were matched by left atrial diameter (LAD), the presence of arterial hypertension, and other variables that might influence the results (age, gender and paroxysmal vs. persistent AF). There were no statistical differences in the variables used to perform the matching. Patients with depressed LVEF had higher LV end diastolic diameter (55.6 +/- 6.2 vs. 52.4 +/- 5.5, P = 0.03), higher LV end systolic diameter (40.3 +/- 6.9 vs. 32.6 +/- 4.3, P < 0.001), lower LVEF (41.4 +/- 8.0 vs. 63.1 +/- 5.5, P < 0.001) and were more likely to have structural heart disease. After a mean follow-up of 16 +/- 13 months, survival analysis for AF recurrences showed no differences between patients with depressed vs. normal LVEF (50.0 vs. 55.6%, log rank = 0.82). Cox regression analysis revealed LAD to be the only variable correlated to recurrence OR 1.11 (1.01-1.22), P = 0.03. Analysis at 6 months showed a significant increase in LVEF (43.23 +/- 7.61 to 51.12 +/- 13.53%, P = 0.01) for the case group. CONCLUSION: LV systolic dysfunction by itself is not a predictor of outcome after AF ablation. LAD independently correlates with outcome in patients with low or normal LVEF.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Potter et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a73b987c553859489f1577bhttps://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eup309
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Success of Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction2011 · 159 citations
  2. 2Prognostic Significance of Post-Procedural Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Following Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Patients With Systolic Dysfunction2020 · 12 citations
  3. 3Impact of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction on Outcome of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy2014 · 29 citations
  4. 4Effect of systolic dysfunction and elevated left ventricular end diastolic pressure on 3-year clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation2021
  5. 5Effect of systolic dysfunction and elevated left ventricular end diastolic pressure on 3‐year clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation2021 · 2 citations