Why the study?
It was unknown whether left atrial volumes and function are associated with atrial high-rate episodes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Does pre-implant left atrial emptying fraction measured by cardiac CT predict device-detected atrial high-rate episodes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does pre-implant left atrial emptying fraction measured by cardiac CT predict device-detected atrial high-rate episodes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Pre-implant left atrial emptying fraction assessed by cardiac CT is an independent predictor of subsequent device-detected atrial high-rate episodes in patients receiving CRT.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether left atrial (LA) volumes and function were associated with atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: Ninety-two consecutive patients without prior atrial fibrillation underwent clinical evaluation, echocardiograms, and cardiac computed tomography (CT) before CRT implantation and after 6 months. Left atrial volumes and LA emptying fraction (LAEF) were derived by CT images reconstructed at 5% phase increments of the cardiac cycle. Cox regression was used to assess associations between AHRE and LA anatomical and functional variables. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (24%) developed AHRE during 1.9 years (SD, 1 year) At baseline, higher LAEF was associated with a lower risk of AHRE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.98; P = 0.003), and large LA minimal (LAmin) volume was related to higher risk of AHRE (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; P = 0.04). When combining LAEF and LAmin volume, only LAEF remained associated with occurrence of AHRE. Higher passive LAEF was associated with lower risk of AHRE (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CRT, low preimplant LAEF measured by cardiac CT was independently associated with device-detected AHRE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Witt et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: