Key result
Antiarrhythmic treatment is associated with ~88% greater effectiveness in lone AF versus AF with hypertension.
Why the study?
The study sought to assess cardiac electrophysiological parameters in patients with paroxysmal AF, lone or with concomitant AH, and their prognostic significance relative to treatment effectiveness.
Does antiarrhythmic treatment (drugs or ablation) prevent atrial fibrillation recurrence differently in patients with lone paroxysmal AF compared to those with concomitant arterial hypertension?
Observational (n=184)
Does antiarrhythmic treatment (drugs or ablation) prevent atrial fibrillation recurrence differently in patients with lone paroxysmal AF compared to those with concomitant arterial hypertension?
Absolute Event Rate: 64% vs 34%
p-value: p=<0.05
Patients with lone paroxysmal atrial fibrillation have higher rates of antiarrhythmic treatment success compared to those with concomitant hypertension, although baseline electrophysiological parameters do not predict this efficacy.
Lone AF shows greater atrial ERP dispersion than AF with hypertension; leaves open whether EP parameters aid treatment selection in paroxysmal AF.
PURPOSE: to assess cardiac electrophysiological parameters in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), lone or with concomitant arterial hypertension (AH), and their prognostic significance relative to treatment effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included in this study 184 patients with paroxysmal AF (84 with concomitant AH and 100 with presumed lone AF). Cardiac electrophysiological study was performed in accordance with standardized protocol that included assessment of sinus node recovery time, sinoatrial, intraatrial and interatrial conduction time, and effective refractory periods (ERP) of right and left atria and atrioventricular node. Patients with inducible supraventricular reentrant arrhythmias that could potentially trigger AF underwent catheter radiofrequency ablation of those arrhythmias. Other patients received either antiarrhythmic drug therapy (AAD; n=79) or catheter cryo-ablation (CBA; n=81). Treatment was considered ineffective in case of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF episode documented by ECG or Holter ECG within 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with lone AF compared with those with AH had shorter ERP of the right atrium (219±21 ms vs. 253±44 ms, respectively, p<0.05) and more prominent dispersion of ERP of right and left atria (median 40 ms, interquartile range 10-50 ms vs. median 20 ms, interquartile range 10-22.5 ms, respectively, p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in other electrophysiology parameters between the groups. Sustained supraventricular reentrant arrhythmias were induced in 9% (9 of 100) patients with presumed lone AF and in 1.2% (1 of 84) patients with AH (p<0.05). All these arrhythmias were successfully ablated, and patients had no AF recurrence during 12-month follow-up. Among other patient treatment (CBA n=81, AAD n=79) was effective in 64% of those with lone AFib and in 34% - with AH (p<0.05). In multivariate multiple regression analysis, none of electrophysiological parameters could be assumed as a factor associated with the efficacy of CBA or AAD. CONCLUSION: Patients with lone AF had more prominent atrial electrophysiological inhomogeneity compared with patients with concomitant AH. Cardiac electrophysiological parameters had no influence on effectiveness of antiarrhythmic treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Миронова et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=184). Lone atrial fibrillation vs. Atrial fibrillation with concomitant arterial hypertension was evaluated on Treatment effectiveness (absence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF episode within 12 months) (p=<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: