Disparity between two-dimensional echocardiographic and electroanatomic left and right atrial volumes in patients undergoing catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
27982678
DOI
10.33549/physiolres.933314
PII: 933314
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- chirurgie s pomocí počítače metody MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- echokardiografie metody MeSH
- fibrilace síní diagnostické zobrazování patologie chirurgie MeSH
- katetrizační ablace metody MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mapování potenciálů tělesného povrchu metody MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- srdeční síně diagnostické zobrazování patologie chirurgie MeSH
- velikost orgánu MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Left atrial (LA) volume (LAV) is used for the selection of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to rhythm control strategies. Calculation of LAV from the LA diameters and areas by two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography may result in significant error. Accuracy of atrial volume assessment has never been studied in patients with long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) and significant atrial remodeling. This study investigated correlation and agreement between 2D echocardiographic (Simpson method) and electroanatomic (CARTO, Biosense Webster) left and right atrial (RA) volumes (LAV(ECHO) vs. LAV(CARTO) and RAV(ECHO) vs. RAV(CARTO)) in patients undergoing catheter ablation for LSPAF. The study enrolled 173 consecutive subjects (females: 21 %, age: 59+/-9 years). There was only modest correlation between LAV(ECHO) (92+/-31 ml) and LAV(CARTO) (178+/-37 ml) (R=0.57), and RAV(ECHO) (71+/-29 ml) and RAV(CARTO) (173+/-34 ml) (R=0.42), respectively. LAV(ECHO) and RAV(ECHO) underestimated LAV(CARTO) and RAV(CARTO) with the absolute bias (+/-1.96 standard deviation) of -85 (-148; -22) ml and -102 (-169; -35) ml, respectively, and with the relative bias of -48 (-75; -21) % and -59 (-88; -30) %, respectively (all P<0.000001 for their mutual difference). Significant confounders of this difference were not identified. In patients with LSPAF, 2D echocardiography significantly underestimated both LA and RA volumes as compared with electroanatomic reference. This disagreement was independent of clinical, echocardiographic and mapping characteristics.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org