4.5 Article

Atrial fibrillation type and renal dysfunction as important predictors of left atrial thrombus

Journal

HEART
Volume 105, Issue 17, Pages 1310-1315

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314492

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective We aimed to identify predictors of left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and to enhance the prognostic value of the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score. Methods Derivation cohort included 1033 consecutive AF patients referred for catheter ablation or direct current cardioversion, in whom transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) was performed prior to the procedure. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of LAA thrombus on TOE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to compare the newly developed score with the CHA(2)DS(2) and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc scores in the derivation and the validation (n = 320) cohort. Results On TOE, LAA thrombus was present in 59 (5.7%) patients in the derivation cohort. Aside from variables encompassed by the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score, LAA thrombus predictors included AF type (persistent/'permanent' vs paroxysmal) and renal dysfunction. These predictors were incorporated into the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score. In ROC analysis, area under the curve (AUC) for the new score (CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc-RAF score) was significantly higher (0.81) than those for the CHA(2)DS(2) and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc scores (0.71 and 0.70, respectively). In the validation cohort, the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc-RAF score also performed significantly better (AUC of 0.88) than the CHA(2)DS(2) and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc scores (AUC of 0.63 and 0.60, respectively). Conclusion In real-world AF patients with majority on oral anticoagulation, LAA thrombus was found in approximately 6%. Two variables not included in the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score (AF type and renal dysfunction) proved strong, independent predictors of LAA thrombus and might improve thromboembolic risk stratification.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available