Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2011
Atrial electromechanical interval can identify patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and is associated with CHADS2 score and peak velocity of left atrial appendage.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Chao Tze-Fan, Sung Shih-Hsien, Wang Kang-Ling, Tsao Hsuan-Ming, Lin Yenn-Jiang, Chang Shih-Lin, Lo Li-Wei, Hu Yu-Feng, Tuan Ta-Chuan, Suenari Kazuyoshi, Li Cheng-Hung, Liu Shuen-Hsin, Wu Tsu-Juey, Yu Wen-Chung, Chen Shih-Ann
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: It is difficult to discriminate patients with and without paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). The atrial electromechanical interval determined by the transthoracic echocardiogram is demonstrated to be a predictor of new onset AF. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the electromechanical interval is a useful parameter to identify patients with PAF.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 297 patients (PAF group = 103; control group = 194) with mean age of 59.4 ± 12.4 years were enrolled. The electromechanical interval (PA-PDI) defined as the time interval from the initiation of the P-wave deflection to the peak of the mitral inflow A wave on the pulse-wave Doppler imaging was measured for every patient. Patients with PAF had significantly longer PA-PDI intervals compared with that of patients without it (152.7 ± 13.8 ms vs 133.4 ± 16.8 ms). The area under ROC curve based on the PA-PDI interval to diagnose PAF was 0.803 (95% confidence interval = 0.755-0.851, P < 0.001). At the cut-off value of 142 ms, the sensitivity and specificity in identifying PAF were 77.7% and 80.1%, respectively. In the PAF group, the PA-PDI interval was closely associated with the CHADS(2) score and inversely related with the peak velocity of left atrial appendage.
CONCLUSIONS: The PA-PDI interval may be a useful parameter to identify patients with PAF. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the usefulness of PA-PDI intervals in diagnosing PAF in addition to the current methods and tools.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 297 patients (PAF group = 103; control group = 194) with mean age of 59.4 ± 12.4 years were enrolled. The electromechanical interval (PA-PDI) defined as the time interval from the initiation of the P-wave deflection to the peak of the mitral inflow A wave on the pulse-wave Doppler imaging was measured for every patient. Patients with PAF had significantly longer PA-PDI intervals compared with that of patients without it (152.7 ± 13.8 ms vs 133.4 ± 16.8 ms). The area under ROC curve based on the PA-PDI interval to diagnose PAF was 0.803 (95% confidence interval = 0.755-0.851, P < 0.001). At the cut-off value of 142 ms, the sensitivity and specificity in identifying PAF were 77.7% and 80.1%, respectively. In the PAF group, the PA-PDI interval was closely associated with the CHADS(2) score and inversely related with the peak velocity of left atrial appendage.
CONCLUSIONS: The PA-PDI interval may be a useful parameter to identify patients with PAF. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the usefulness of PA-PDI intervals in diagnosing PAF in addition to the current methods and tools.