International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021
Clinical utility of rhythm control by electrical cardioversion to assess the association between self-reported symptoms and rhythm status in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hermans Astrid N L, Pluymaekers Nikki A H A, Lankveld Theo A R, van Mourik Manouk J W, Zeemering Stef, Dinh Trang, den Uijl Dennis W, Luermans Justin G L M, Vernooy Kevin, Crijns Harry J G M, Schotten Ulrich, Linz Dominik
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The best strategy to assess the association between symptoms and rhythm status (symptom-rhythm correlation) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the clinical utility of rhythm control by electrical cardioversion (ECV) to assess symptom-rhythm correlation in patients with persistent AF.
METHODS: We used ECV to examine symptom-rhythm correlation in 81 persistent AF patients. According to current clinical practice, the presence of self-reported symptoms before ECV and at the first outpatient clinic follow-up visit (within 1-month) was assessed to determine the prevalence of a symptom-rhythm correlation (defined as self-reported symptoms present during AF and absent in sinus rhythm or absent in AF and yet relief during sinus rhythm). In addition, we evaluated symptom patterns around ECV.
RESULTS: Only in 18 patients (22%), a symptom-rhythm correlation could be documented. Twenty-eight patients (35%) did not show any symptom-rhythm correlation and 35 patients (43%) had an unevaluable symptom-rhythm correlation as these patients were in symptomatic AF both at baseline and at the first outpatient AF clinic follow-up visit. Importantly, self-reported symptom patterns around ECV were intra-individually variable in 10 patients (12%) without symptom-rhythm correlation (of which 9 patients (11%) had AF recurrence) and in 2 patients (2%) with an unevaluable symptom-rhythm correlation.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistent AF, symptom assessment around rhythm control by ECV, once before ECV and once within 1-month follow-up, rarely identifies a symptom-rhythm correlation and often suggests changes in symptom pattern. Better strategies are needed to assess symptom-rhythm correlation in patients with persistent AF.
METHODS: We used ECV to examine symptom-rhythm correlation in 81 persistent AF patients. According to current clinical practice, the presence of self-reported symptoms before ECV and at the first outpatient clinic follow-up visit (within 1-month) was assessed to determine the prevalence of a symptom-rhythm correlation (defined as self-reported symptoms present during AF and absent in sinus rhythm or absent in AF and yet relief during sinus rhythm). In addition, we evaluated symptom patterns around ECV.
RESULTS: Only in 18 patients (22%), a symptom-rhythm correlation could be documented. Twenty-eight patients (35%) did not show any symptom-rhythm correlation and 35 patients (43%) had an unevaluable symptom-rhythm correlation as these patients were in symptomatic AF both at baseline and at the first outpatient AF clinic follow-up visit. Importantly, self-reported symptom patterns around ECV were intra-individually variable in 10 patients (12%) without symptom-rhythm correlation (of which 9 patients (11%) had AF recurrence) and in 2 patients (2%) with an unevaluable symptom-rhythm correlation.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistent AF, symptom assessment around rhythm control by ECV, once before ECV and once within 1-month follow-up, rarely identifies a symptom-rhythm correlation and often suggests changes in symptom pattern. Better strategies are needed to assess symptom-rhythm correlation in patients with persistent AF.