What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Atrial fibrillation (n=246). Intervention: Peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) vs. Lower LASr and LAAV values. Primary outcome: Atrial fibrillation recurrence (documented AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia lasting ≥30 s) after a 3-month blanking period (HR 0.891, 95% CI 0.842-0.943, p=<0.001).

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate the predictive value of left atrial reservoir strain and appendage flow velocity for atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation.

June 18, 2026Open Access

Predictive value of peak left atrial reservoir strain combined with left atrial appendage flow velocity for atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Higher peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) independently predicted a lower risk of atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation, with a 1% increase in LASr yielding an HR of 0.891.

Q: What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate the predictive value of left atrial reservoir strain and appendage flow velocity for atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation.

Key Result

Higher peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) independently predicted a lower risk of atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation, with a 1% increase in LASr yielding an HR of 0.891.

Key Points

This research aims to evaluate the predictive value of left atrial reservoir strain and appendage flow velocity for atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation.
Retrospective analysis of clinical data from 246 patients with AF who underwent PFA.
Measured peak left atrial reservoir strain and left atrial appendage flow velocity using echocardiography techniques.
Follow-up analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and ROC curve for predictive performance.
27.6% of patients experienced recurrence of atrial arrhythmia post-ablation.
LASr and LAAV are independent predictors of AF recurrence (HR for LASr = 0.891, P < 0.001; HR for LAAV = 0.972, P = 0.001).
The AUC improved from 0.752 to 0.891 after including LASr and LAAV in the model.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=246)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does the combination of preoperative peak left atrial reservoir strain and left atrial appendage flow velocity predict atrial arrhythmia recurrence after pulsed field ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation?

Population

246 adults with atrial fibrillation undergoing their first pulsed field ablation, followed for a median of 17.3 months to assess predictors of recurrence.

Exposure

Measurement of preoperative peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) using transesophageal echocardiography

Comparator

Baseline clinical model (persistent AF, AF duration, and left atrial volume index)

Outcome

Recurrence of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia after the blanking periodcomposite

Combining peak left atrial reservoir strain and left atrial appendage flow velocity provides incremental predictive value over conventional clinical factors for identifying patients at high risk of atrial arrhythmia recurrence after pulsed field ablation.

Main Result

Hazard Ratio: 0.891 (95% CI 0.842–0.943)

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

Retrospective study design
Limited detection of brief or asymptomatic recurrence episodes due to reliance on fixed-time-point ECG/Holter monitoring rather than continuous monitoring
Procedural heterogeneity in ablation strategies (e.g., additional linear or CFAE ablation in some patients)

Abstract

Background The recurrence rate after ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains high, and the predictive performance of existing predictors is limited. Left atrial dysfunction plays a key role in the occurrence and progression of AF. However, studies on predictors of recurrence after pulsed field ablation (PFA) remain relatively limited, particularly comprehensive assessments combining left atrial strain parameters with left atrial appendage flow velocity. Methods Clinical data from 246 patients with AF who underwent PFA between June 2021 and June 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) was measured using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE), and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) was measured using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The follow-up cutoff date was December 30, 2024, and the median follow-up duration was 17.3 (10.8, 25.6) months. Recurrence of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia after the blanking period was recorded. A predefined multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors, and model performance was evaluated using the 18-month time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, Kaplan-Meier method, and bootstrap internal validation. Results During follow-up, 68 patients (27.6%) experienced recurrence of atrial arrhythmia after the blanking period. Both LASr and LAAV were lower in the recurrence group than in the non-recurrence group (both P < 0.001). Predefined multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that LASr (per 1% increase: hazard ratio HR = 0.891, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.842–0.943, P < 0.001) and LAAV (per 1 cm/s increase: HR = 0.972, 95% CI: 0.956–0.989, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of AF recurrence after PFA; AF duration did not reach statistical significance after adjustment (HR = 1.005, 95% CI: 0.996–1.014, P = 0.268). The 18-month area under the curve (AUC) of the baseline clinical model constructed with persistent AF, AF duration, and left atrial volume index (LAVI) was 0.752 (95% CI: 0.687–0.817). After adding LASr and LAAV to the baseline model, the 18-month AUC increased to 0.891 (95% CI: 0.849–0.933), outperforming the baseline model (bootstrap P < 0.001) and improving reclassification ability (net reclassification index NRI = 0.438, 95% CI: 0.286–0.590; integrated discrimination improvement IDI = 0.158, 95% CI: 0.108–0.208; both P < 0.001). Based on LASr ≤ 22.3% and LAAV ≤ 45.2 cm/s, the 18-month recurrence-free rates in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 88.7%, 70.5%, and 36.1%, respectively. Conclusions LASr and LAAV were independent predictors of AF recurrence after PFA, and their combination provided incremental predictive value beyond conventional clinical factors. Risk stratification based on LASr ≤ 22.3% and LAAV ≤ 45.2 cm/s may be used for preprocedural risk communication and assessment of postprocedural follow-up intensity; however, whether this approach can guide changes in ablation strategy and improve outcomes requires validation in prospective studies.

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wang et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=246). Peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) vs. Lower LASr and LAAV values was evaluated on Atrial fibrillation recurrence (documented AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia lasting ≥30 s) after a 3-month blanking period (HR 0.891, 95% CI 0.842-0.943, p=<0.001). Higher peak left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAV) independently predicted a lower risk of atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation, with a 1% increase in LASr yielding an HR of 0.891.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a33d15614a9c556e66779a0 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-026-06131-x

Bookmark

View Full Paper