Background
The amount of fibrosis in the left atrium (LA) predicts atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after catheter ablation (CA). We aim to identify whether regional variations in LA fibrosis affect AF recurrence.
Methods
This post-hoc analysis of the DECAAF II trial includes 734 patients with persistent AF undergoing first-time CA who underwent Late Gadolinium Enhancement Magnetic Imaging Resonance (LGE-MRI) within one month prior to ablation and were randomized to MRI-guided fibrosis ablation in addition to standard pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), or standard PVI only. The LA wall was divided into seven regions: anterior, posterior, septal, lateral, right pulmonary vein (PV) antrum, left PV antrum, and left atrial appendage (LAA) ostium. Regional fibrosis percentage was defined as a region’s fibrosis prior to ablation divided by total LA fibrosis. Regional surface area percentage was defined as an area’s surface area divided by the total LA wall surface area before ablation. Patients were followed up for a year with single-lead ECG devices.
Results
The left PV had the highest regional fibrosis percentage (29.30 ± 14.04%), followed by the lateral wall (23.23 ± 13.56%), and the posterior wall (19.80 ± 10.85%). The regional fibrosis percentage of the LAA was a significant predictor of AF recurrence post-ablation (OR = 1.017, p = 0.021), and this finding was only preserved in patients receiving MRI-guided fibrosis ablation. Regional surface area percentages did not significantly affect the primary outcome.
Conclusion
We have confirmed that atrial cardiomyopathy and remodeling is not a homogenous process, with variations in different regions of the LA. Atrial fibrosis does not uniformly affect the LA, and the left PV antral region has more fibrosis than the rest of the wall. Furthermore, we identified regional fibrosis of the LAA as a significant predictor of AF recurrence post-ablation in patients receiving MRI-guided fibrosis ablation in addition to standard PVI.
Aims
The aim of our study was to assess differences in post-ablation atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence and burden and to quantify the change in LVEF across different congestive heart failure (CHF) subcategories of the DECAAF-II population.
Methods and results
Differences in the primary outcome of AF recurrence between CHF and non-CHF groups was calculated. The same analysis was performed for the three subgroups of CHF and the non-CHF group. Differences in AF burden after the 3-month blanking period between CHF and non-CHF groups was calculated. Improvement in LVEF was calculated and compared across the three CHF groups. Improvement was also calculated across different fibrosis stages. There was no significant differences in AF recurrence and AF burden after catheter ablation between CHF and non-CHF patients and between different CHF subcategories. Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) experienced the greatest improvement in EF following catheter ablation (CA, 16.66% ± 11.98, P < 0.001) compared to heart failure with moderately reduced LVEF, and heart failure with preserved EF (10.74% ± 8.34 and 2.00 ± 8.34 respectively, P-value < 0.001). Moreover, improvement in LVEF was independent of the four stages of atrial fibrosis (7.71 vs. 9.53 vs. 5.72 vs. 15.88, from Stage I to Stage IV respectively, P = 0.115).
Conclusion
Atrial fibrillation burden and recurrence after CA is similar between non-CHF and CHF patients, independent of the type of CHF. Of all CHF groups, those with HFrEF had the largest improvement in LVEF after CA. Moreover, the improvement in ventricular function seems to be independent of atrial fibrosis in patients with persistent AF.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.