Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2019
Atrial electromechanical delay assessment in early phase after catheter ablation for patients with 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.
Chen Xiaodong, Liu Hailei, Zhang Yi, Wang Chunru, Xu Di, Yang Bing, Ju Weizhu, Zhang Fengxiang, Chen Hongwu, Cao Kejiang, Chen Minglong
Аннотация
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.
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.