Why the study?
LA diameter in previous LVA prediction scores does not accurately reflect LA size and impaired LV-EF is not directly tied to atrial myopathy.
Does the modified APPLE score improve the prediction of low-voltage areas compared to the regular APPLE score in patients undergoing first AF catheter ablation?
Does the modified APPLE score improve the prediction of low-voltage areas compared to the regular APPLE score in patients undergoing first AF catheter ablation?
The modified APPLE score incorporating LA volume and LA emptying fraction demonstrated good prognostic value for predicting low-voltage areas, comparable to the regular APPLE score.
mAPPLE may refine LVA prediction in AF; leaves open external validation before guiding ablation decisions.
AIMS: The presence of low-voltage areas (LVAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) reflects left atrial (LA) electroanatomical substrate, which is essential for individualized AF management. However, echocardiographic anteroposterior LA diameter included into previous LVAs prediction scores does not mirror LA size accurately and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) is not directly associated with atrial myopathy. Therefore, we aimed to compare a modified (m)APPLE score, which included LA volume (LAV) and LA emptying fraction (LA-EF) with the regular APPLE score for the prediction of LVAs. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients undergoing first AF catheter ablation, LVAs were determined peri-interventionally using high-density maps and defined as signal amplitude <0.5 mV. All patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging before intervention. The APPLE (one point for Age ≥ 65 years, Persistent AF, imPaired eGFR ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, LA diameter ≥ 43 mm, and LVEF < 50%) and (m)APPLE (last two variables changed by LAV ≥ 39 mL/m2, and LA-EF < 31%) scores were calculated at baseline. The study population included 219 patients [median age 65 (interquartile range 57-72) years, 41% females, 59% persistent AF, 25% LVAs]. Both scores were significantly associated with LVAs [OR 1.817, 95% CI 1.376-2.399 for APPLE and 2.288, 95% CI 1.650-3.172 for (m)APPLE]. Using receiver operating characteristic curves analysis, the (m)APPLE score [area under the curve (AUC) 0.779, 95% CI 0.702-0.855] showed better LVAs prediction than the APPLE score (AUC 0.704, 95% CI 0.623-0.784), however, without statistically significant difference (P = 0.233). CONCLUSION: The modified (m)APPLE score demonstrated good prognostic value for LVAs prediction and was comparable with the regular APPLE score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seewöster et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: