Key result
Left atrial spontaneous echo contrast was associated with lower AF/AT recurrence-free survival after catheter ablation compared to no LASEC (45.2% vs 68.0%; HR 2.058, 95% CI 1.151-3.679, p=0.015).
Why the study?
Whether left atrial spontaneous echo contrast (LASEC) has prognostic value in predicting procedure outcomes after catheter ablation in AF patients with left atrial dilation was unknown.
Does the presence of LASEC predict AF/AT recurrence after catheter ablation in AF patients with left atrial dilation?
Cohort (n=123)
No
Does the presence of LASEC predict AF/AT recurrence after catheter ablation in AF patients with left atrial dilation?
Hazard Ratio: 2.058 (95% CI 1.151–3.679)
Absolute Event Rate: 45.2% vs 68%
p-value: p=0.015
The presence of left atrial spontaneous echo contrast detected by TEE prior to catheter ablation is a significant predictor of AF/AT recurrence in patients with AF and left atrial dilation.
LASEC may refine periprocedural risk stratification in enlarged atria; leaves open independent prognostic value pending prospective validation.
Background: Left atrial spontaneous echo contrast (LASEC) can be detected by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) before the catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), especially in patients with left atrial (LA) dilation. Whether LASEC has prognostic value in predicting the procedure outcomes in patients with an enlarged atrium is unknown. The prognostic implications of LASEC with the catheter ablation of AF patients with LA dilation will be evaluated in this study. Methods: AF patients scheduled to undergo catheter ablation in Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai, China, between January 2018 and June 2020 were screened for this prospective study. All patients underwent TEE before the procedure. Patients with a left atrial diameter (LAD; 45 mm ≤ LAD < 50 mm) and left atrial volume (LAV ≥ 120 mL) were enrolled in this study. The endpoint was AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence-free survival following a 3-month blanking period after the catheter ablation. All patients were followed up for 18 months. Results: This study included 123 AF patients, who were divided into the LASEC (n = 73) and no LASEC (n = 50) groups. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the two groups. At the end of 18 months of follow-up, AF/AT recurrence-free survival was achieved in 33 (45.2%) and 34 (68.0%) patients in the LASEC and no LASEC groups, respectively (p = 0.013). In survival analysis, the LASEC group was also associated with a poor outcome of catheter ablation (log-rank test, p = 0.011; Cox regression, p = 0.015, HR = 2.058, 95%CI = 1.151−3.679). Meanwhile, during the follow-up AF/AT recurrence was observed in 30 (57.7%) and 15 (71.4%) cases in the mild and severe SEC groups, respectively. Ischemic stroke occurred in two patients in the LASEC group. Conclusions: LASEC could be a predictor of the recurrence of AF/AT after catheter ablation in AF patients with LA dilation. The higher the degree of LASEC, the worse the prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation with left atrial dilation (n=123). Left atrial spontaneous echo contrast (LASEC) vs. No LASEC was evaluated on AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence-free survival following a 3-month blanking period (HR 2.058, 95% CI 1.151-3.679, p=0.015). Left atrial spontaneous echo contrast was associated with lower AF/AT recurrence-free survival after catheter ablation compared to no LASEC (45.2% vs 68.0%; HR 2.058, 95% CI 1.151-3.679, p=0.015).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: