Premium
Atrial electromechanical delay assessment in early phase after catheter ablation for patients with atrial fibrillation
Author(s) -
Chen Xiaodong,
Liu Hailei,
Zhang Yi,
Wang Chunru,
Xu Di,
Yang Bing,
Ju Weizhu,
Zhang Fengxiang,
Chen Hongwu,
Cao Kejiang,
Chen Minglong
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.13602
Subject(s) - medicine , atrial fibrillation , cardiology , ablation , catheter ablation , sinus rhythm , cardioversion , anesthesia
Background Variation of atrial electromechanical delay (AED) in early phase after catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is lacking. Methods Fifty‐five consecutive patients restored sinus rhythm after ablation was included. Echocardiography was performed at 4 h, 1 day, and 3 days after radiofrequency catheter ablation, and AED was measured simultaneously by echocardiography with pulse Doppler imaging and pulse wave tissue Doppler imaging. Results AED parameters were significantly longer in the nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF) group than in the paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) group at each checking point after ablation ( P < 0.05). Compared with other checking points, AED parameters were significantly longer 4 h postablation in the NPAF group, while no significant difference was found between different checking points in the PAF group. AED‐leap, representing the variation of AED in NPAF patients, was significantly positively correlated with the duration of NPAF ( r = 0.5291, P = 0.0113). Conclusions Compared with PAF, NPAF patients have a longer AED postablation, and an abrupt decrease in the initial–h postablation. Such phenomenon gives rise to the different clinical features of PAF and NPAF, and could guide different assessment and treatment strategies for different types of AF.