Why the study?
Ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall is a novel AF treatment, but few studies have examined differences in vein of Marshall characteristics between AF and non-AF patients.
Do angiographic characteristics of the vein of Marshall differ between patients with and without atrial fibrillation?
Do angiographic characteristics of the vein of Marshall differ between patients with and without atrial fibrillation?
Patients with atrial fibrillation have a higher incidence and larger ostium of the vein of Marshall compared to those with other arrhythmias, which may have implications for ethanol infusion therapies.
Background: Ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall (Et-VOM) is a novel therapeutic treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have focused on the difference between AF and non-AF patients (presented other types of arrhythmias) regarding the characteristics of the vein of Marshall (VOM). Objective: This study sought to investigate the incidence, morphology, and angiographic characteristics of the VOM. Methods: Coronary sinus (CS) angiography was performed in all patients. The baseline, angiographic characteristics and measurements of VOM dimensions were compared between the AF and non-AF group. Results: CS angiography was performed in 290 patients. The VOM detection rate was higher in the AF group than in the non-AF group (91.8% vs. 84.1%, p = 0.044). In the right anterior oblique (RAO) projection, AF patients had significant larger VOM ostium, CS ostium, and CS diameter at VOM ostium than non-AF patients (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.015; 12.8 ± 4.1 vs. 11.4 ± 3.7 mm, p = 0.016; 9.1 ± 3.1 vs. 8.2 ± 2.9 mm, p = 0.028, respectively). There was a slight linear correlation between the VOM ostium and the CS ostium diameter as well as left atrial volume (LAV). Conclusion: AF patients seem to have a higher incidence of the VOM, larger VOM ostium, CS ostium, and CS lumen in RAO view. Meanwhile, the VOM ostium may correlate with the CS ostium and LAV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ding et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: