4.6 Article

Baseline Intraoperative Left Ventricular Diastolic Function Is Associated with Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery

Journal

ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 139, Issue 5, Pages 602-613

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004725

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intraoperative left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is closely associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation. Patients who develop postoperative atrial fibrillation are more likely to have abnormal left ventricular diastolic function. Baseline abnormal left ventricular diastolic function and pericardiotomy intervention are independently associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation.
Background:Detailed understanding of the association between intraoperative left atrial and left ventricular diastolic function and postoperative atrial fibrillation is lacking. In this post hoc analysis of the Posterior Left Pericardiotomy for the Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery (PALACS) trial, we aimed to evaluate the association of intraoperative left atrial and left ventricular diastolic function as assessed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) with postoperative atrial fibrillation.Methods:PALACS patients with available intraoperative TEE data (n = 402 of 420; 95.7%) were included in this cohort study. We tested the hypotheses that preoperative left atrial size and function, left ventricular diastolic function, and their intraoperative changes were associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation. Normal left ventricular diastolic function was graded as 0 and with lateral e' velocity 10 cm/s or greater. Diastolic dysfunction was defined as lateral e' less than 10 cm/s using E/e' cutoffs of grade 1, E/e' 8 or less; grade, 2 E/e' 9 to 12; and grade 3, E/e' 13 or greater, along with two criteria based on mitral inflow and pulmonary wave flow velocities.Results:A total of 230 of 402 patients (57.2%) had intraoperative diastolic dysfunction. Posterior pericardiotomy intervention was not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 99 of 402 patients (24.6%) developed postoperative atrial fibrillation. Patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation more frequently had abnormal left ventricular diastolic function compared to patients who did not develop postoperative atrial fibrillation (75.0% [n = 161 of 303] vs. 57.5% [n = 69 of 99]; P = 0.004). Of the left atrial size and function parameters, only delta left atrial area, defined as presternotomy minus post-chest closure measurement, was significantly different in the no postoperative atrial fibrillation versus postoperative atrial fibrillation groups on univariate analysis (-2.1 cm2 [interquartile range, -5.1 to 1.0] vs. 0.1 [interquartile range, -4.0 to 4.8]; P = 0.028). At multivariable analysis, baseline abnormal left ventricular diastolic function (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.63; P = 0.016) and pericardiotomy intervention (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.78, P = 0.004) were the only covariates independently associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation.Conclusions:Baseline preoperative left ventricular diastolic dysfunction on TEE, not left atrial size or function, is independently associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation. Further studies are needed to test if interventions aimed at optimizing intraoperative left ventricular diastolic function during cardiac surgery may reduce the risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation. Patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation had more frequently abnormal baseline intraoperative transesophageal echocardiographic left ventricular diastolic function compared to patients who did not develop postoperative atrial fibrillation (75.0% vs. 57.5%; P = 0.004). Baseline preoperative intraoperative left ventricular diastolic function is independently associated with greater postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.63; P = 0.016).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available