4.2 Article

A new clinical risk score for predicting the prevalence of low-voltage areas in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 12, Pages 3150-3158

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jce.14761

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; clinical risk score; low-voltage areas; voltage mapping

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Although the presence of left atrial low-voltage areas (LVAs) is strongly associated with the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after ablation, few methods are available to classify the prevalence of LVAs. The purpose of this study was to establish a risk score for predicting the prevalence of LVAs in patients undergoing ablation for AF. Methods We enrolled 1004 consecutive patients who underwent initial ablation for AF (age, 68 +/- 10 years old; female, 346 (34%); persistent AF, 513 (51%)). LVAs were deemed present when the voltage map after pulmonary vein isolation demonstrated low-voltage areas with a peak-to-peak bipolar voltage of LVAs were present in 206 (21%) patients. The SPEED score was obtained as the total number of independent predictors as identified on multivariate analysis, namely female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 2.2-5.2],p < .01), persistent AF (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1-3.0],p = .02), age >= 70 years (OR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5-3.4],p < .01), elevated brain natriuretic peptide >= 100 pg/ml or N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide >= 400 pg/ml (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.02-2.8],p = .04), and diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1-2.8],p = .02). LVAs were more frequent in patients with a higher SPEED score, and prevalence increased with each additional SPEED score point (OR, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.0-2.8],p < .01). Conclusion The SPEED score accurately predicts the prevalence of LVAs in patients undergoing ablation for AF.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available